That's it.Originally Posted by LateBoomer
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Posts
- 2,860
That's it.
This is.. not surprising. Extreme diets have been used to fight autoimmune conditions since the early 1800s. First there was an all-rice diet, then Dr. Samuel Gee cited the anecdote of a sickly child who thrived during mussel season and deteriorated when mussels were out of season, and for a few decades after the 1920s there was an all-banana diet in vogue. They were each relatively effective at treating autoimmune conditions before we even knew to classify the disorders as being autoimmune. I even dropped ~50 lbs in a month and reserved my own autoimmune condition, but my extreme diet involved 90% steak and potatoes until I started testing and reintroducing more things.
At least the juice diet is fairly well balanced compared to more extreme elimination diets of the past.
But what do the diets all actually have in common? No dairy, nuts, legumes, or commonly allergy-inducing grains. IgE reactions are nice and obvious when someone swells up to a red balloon, but other immunoglobulin reactions (A & G particularly) can be a bit more ... subtle and chronic.
What bothered me most about the documentary was the idea that you can just eat healthy for 10 or 30 or 60 days and be cured of everything. Proper diet and exercise is a lifestyle adjustment and any quick gains can just as quickly be destroyed. The only way a short trial is going to help out in the long run is if the individual feels so much better under the challenge that they're willing to stick to the principles of fresh foods and physical activity.
The ONLY currently known cure for auto-immune disease is diet, but our best medical understanding is still infantile.
For your example, auto-immune diabetes: About 10% of cases can be treated with diet.
But Celiac isn't just highly comorbid with Type 1 Diabetes. It also goes hand in hand with X% of psoriasis, autoimmune thyroiditis, hepatitis, Hashimoto's, Grave's, etc...
So it isn't a magic bullet or the whole Rosetta Stone, but it is definitely an important fragment if we start to consider other common allergens. If x% of psoriasis clears up, 5-20% of schizophrenia cases, or some percent of vitiligo lesions can repigment on a gluten-free diet, what percent clears up on a corn-free diet? Or milk-free diet? If IgG and IgA immune reactions occur in the same proportion as IgE reactions, the odds start looking really, really good that an elimination diet will do something positive. For example, many Meniere’s patients improved on such an allergy-eliminating diet. One thing is for sure, no one in the medical industry or pharmaceuticals cares to study this line of thinking outside of purely academic environments.
This is also a rare example of a place government could theoretically help by trying to control costs. Drug manufacturers and debt-encumbered doctors just need to increase sales and fixing a "regular" with a no-cost cure just doesn't help the bottom line. Then again, given the power of wheat, dairy, and corn in the federal political process, there isn't really a realistic expectation of government honesty & objectivity.
Those words, "temperate and moderate", are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction. A thing, moderately good, is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice.
'82 - Once & always independent
I got the impression that he was trying to change his habits for ever. It wasn't just a diet. It was more of a cleanse to jump start a new way of eating and mostly thinking.
In regards to grains and nuts, my wife soaks them and that helps us out. I don't know the science behind that, because this is her love. But what I do know is that I feel better and that going to McDonald's or have Thanksgiving at our parents home is starting to feel like dying (stomach wise).
Born in 1981 and INFJ Gen Yer
No, no, no, I'm not saying that every individual has an immune response to every allergen. Hell, my breakfast was half nuts and dairy.Agreed.
Here's what the dude in the film eats now. He looks even better here than in the movie.
It pretty much blows up your "nuts and dairy" theory, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMnTr...eature=related
I'm saying people who are chronically ill, and especially those with autoimmune diseases, are much more likely than the general population to have some non-allergic immune response to some common dietary allergen(s) including but not limited to wheat, corn, soy, peanuts, tree nuts, dairy, nightshade, fatty meats, shellfish, alcohol, caffeine, etc... Not that those things are all inherently bad for all people (in moderation).
So this juice diet counts as an elimination diet and it is probably the healthiest one described. When the fast is done, the individual is more likely to be sensitive to offending foods as they are added back in to the diet, and this retrains us to avoid or limit those foods.
Last edited by JohnMc82; 10-21-2011 at 11:50 AM.
Those words, "temperate and moderate", are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction. A thing, moderately good, is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice.
'82 - Once & always independent
In Brief...
Wow, The Rani. You went back and deleted every nice thing you ever said to me. I must have really hurt you. I'm so sorry. Well I cannot begin to understand your unhappiness. So you got me. You are a tower of strength, far stronger than I. And for the record, every (nice) thing I ever said to you is true. I'll never erase it. It's not always necessary to forget the good in someone once things go bad. Diminishes us as humans.
Best...
(Sorry for the interruption folks. Rani doesn't do PM communication.)
night all
Last edited by summer in the fall; 10-22-2011 at 06:04 AM.
Dems Propose $400 Billion in Medicare Cuts
http://www.healthcare-now.org/dems-p...medicare-cuts/
Last edited by Deb C; 10-31-2011 at 04:42 PM.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
And my annual horror story known as annual enrollment:
* My premium contributions are up 17% from last year;
* Our deductible is rising by $500;
* Our out of pocket maximum is rising by $2000.
Pay a lot more, get a lot less.
And oh, yeah -- no raise again this year. Even using the bogus CPI as an indicator of inflation, my take-home pay after taxes and benefit contributions is 14% lower than in 2005. And if you use "real" working/middle class inflation, it's even worse, probably 20% lower. It's a good thing for us we started from a fairly fortunate position or we'd be in a lot of hurt.
It's big of you to understand that, while these increases are ridiculous, that you are in a position to pay for them. There are, and will be a growing number of families and individuals who live pay check to pay check, who cannot afford this greed from the insurance industry.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
This crap makes me so thankful that I have Minnesota's free medical coverage for people with disabilities.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Yep, we had the same thing happen to us last year. They put any employees who travel outside of the country on this the international insurance plan. We have $1000 deductible per person and no co-pay for doctor visits. Then it goes to 80/20 after that. So we have to spend $1000 at doctor visits or on other medical costs before the insurance even kicks in. And yes, our contribution went up too. So we basically only have major medical at this point. Which is not much help when you have kids who are constantly coming down with strep throat, ear aches or other minor illnesses but do require a prescription to treat them. Each trip to the pediatrician's office is $100 a pop plus the cost of the prescription.
I talk to a lot of customers every day about their health insurance and their claims. Over the past year, I've noticed a huge upsurge in those who have been switched by their employers from a regular HMO that has very low (or no) deductibles, to those new "health savings accounts" (HSAs) which is basically just another way to say they have an enormous deductible that applies to almost everything. It works out for the employers, because it's cheaper than the standard HMOs. Another tactic is to switch to an "EPO" policy--these have fairly good hospital coverage, but suck for everything else--we have a lot of older people who need a lot of diagnostic testing but these policies only cover $500 a year in diagnostic benefits. If they need an MRI or extensive testing, they are out of luck.
"My truck has 170,000 miles on it and the MPG is so bad that every time I start it, the ghost of an Indian appears in the passenger seat and cries."
--John Cheese
*INFJ Joneser*
Please join my Facebook group, Fans of the Fourth Turning.
That is just so wrong. I'm sorry.
Well, we weren't forcibly "switched" from the PPO option, but if you look at the premiums, deductibles and OOP maximums we have to choose from, anyone who does the math would choose the HDHP/HSA option. For us (employee + spouse coverage), the difference in our share of the premiums is $3400 a year. Plus we receive a $1000 employer match into our HSA for choosing that option. So between the match and the lower premiums, we're $4400 a year ahead.
But the difference in deductible is $2500 and the difference in out of pocket maximum is $3000. So it seems to me an option that has these extra potential costs up to $3000, but always costs $4400 less, is a no-brainer. (At least if you are fortunate enough to be able to self-insure the higher amounts and can fund the HSA to cover these costs.)
So we're not forced, but with the combination of carrots and sticks, it's clear where we're being steered.
The part of the structure that pisses me off is where YOU get to pay the full charge for your service, whatever it is, if the insurance doesn't pay for it. But when insurance pays for a service, THEY get to pay on a very much reduced basis.
For example, if you go to a commercial lab (For example - Quest Diagnostics or LabCorp) for a 24 test chemistry profile, and you have no insurance, it's likely you will be billed in excess of $100 for the test, and be expected to by god pay it.
The insurance companies, in contrast, have contracts with these companies and will reimburse Quest or LabCorp only pennies on the dollar, the rest being written off as "disallowance."
This is euphemistically referred to as "cost-shifting" by the financial folks in "health-care" providing companies.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
Careful with that. My insurance rep let it slip that the out of pocket maximum doesn't start counting down until after the deductible is fully paid. So the $3500 deductible and $3500 OOP Max on my plan is actually as much as $7000 in costs after the premium.
Those words, "temperate and moderate", are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction. A thing, moderately good, is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice.
'82 - Once & always independent
This cost-shifting is a best kept secret in hospitals and insurance industry. I wonder how many hospitals and doctors would give us consumers the same deal they give the insurance industry?
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
I would like to share some thoughts about our health care system based on the education my wife and I are getting as we pass from one health care system into another. I am beginning to understand a great many things.
Essentially, we, like most of you, have been in the paid employer/employee health care system for some time. My wife is just going into Medicare and I am six months behind her. Now it is very hard to get health care with nothing but Medicare--but most people, clearly, don't get by on Medicare alone. It turns out that under my retirement plan I can get us a supplemental for a little over $200 a month. I'll still get a contribution from the government, but before anyone gets in high dudgeon over that, let me say that I have looked into the AARP supplemental also, which anyone can get, and it's only a tiny bit more. My older brother has had gigantic health problems the last few years--traumatic, not chronic--and he has nothing but the AARP supplemental and Medicare and he tells me he has never paid a thing.
And that's the interesting point: when you pass 65 with medicare and a supplemental, you really enter into a form of socialized medicine, even though it's dual payer, not single payer. (You do have to pay some of your social security into Medicare part B by the way and also for a drug plan if you get one.) You don't have to pay co-pays. You don't have any deductibles. You just go in, get your treatment, and that's it. And of course, you are now in by far the more expensive segment of the population.
So, for those of us in the more fully privately paid for health care system, as I still (for the moment) am, we are subsidizing the elderly in various ways. We are providing all the profit for the health insurers, I suspect. (I doubt they are making any money on the supplementals. They may even be losing a little, although I doubt that too.)
The system, then, seems designed to keep the elderly, who are sicker and more politically powerful, happy, while making wage and salary earners, who have money, are generally healthy, and are too busy to pay too much attention, pay much more. Not only in premiums, but in copays and deductibles, which really do add up. I mean, at this point it's at least $1000 a year for us and maybe more. And we won't be paying that money next year, it seems.
All this explains two things to me.
1. Why the insurance industry simply had to kill the public option. If younger people found out what being on Medicare was like, that would be the end of them.
2 More importantly: why insurance companies will do almost anything to avoid spending serious money on younger patients. It's just not part of the game plan. When Bill Strauss got cancer, as I explained earlier, the insurance company that insured the Capitol Steps tried to triple the company's premium. Fortunately he was able to get into his wife's plan. We all have heard, or experienced, horror stories of HMOs and insurance companies trying to deny necessary care. The point is, if you're young, you're supposed to pay in, not take out. Breaking that rule is a big problem for the companies and they want to punish you.
The thing is, Medicare is cheaper to run than private insurance even though it handles the really sick people! That alone should have told us what we needed to know.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes case
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,7978224.story
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
This is like watching Wile E. Coyote getting something from Acme, putting it together and trying to catch the elusive roadrunner ... not much mystery as to where this is going to go, eh?
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
Another reality -- the world's costliest, but not the world's best, medical care system adds more cost to hiring any employee other than an unreliable temp or casual laborer. American companies get an advantage by operating in Canada instead of the US even if Canadian compensation is as high. We pay for a bureaucratic layer of economic activity that contributes little to nothing to medical care, effectively a private tax.
As I understand, more than half the lifetime cost of medical care for any person is expended in the last year of that person's life... which means that Medicare for all would be little more expensive than Medicare itself.
Unlike Medicare which is subjected to the scrutiny of voters, the private medical system is ultimately responsible largely to shareholders and executives. But they would lose business? Let 'em push life insurance, perhaps in deals with creditors. (If you have life insurance, you would probably get a lower interest rate on your credit cards, home loans, and personal loans and a better credit rating).
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
I had not realized that another feature of ACA went into effect today. The Bomb Buried In Obamacare Explodes Today-Hallelujah!
That would be the provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care.
This is the true ‘bomb’ contained in Obamacare and the one item that will have more impact on the future of how medical care is paid for in this country than anything we’ve seen in quite some time. Indeed, it is this aspect of the law that represents the true ‘death panel’ found in Obamacare—but not one that is going to lead to the death of American consumers. Rather, the medical loss ration will, ultimately, lead to the death of large parts of the private, for-profit health insurance industry.Interesting take. I hope he is right.So, can private health insurance companies manage to make a profit when they actually have to spend premium receipts taking care of their customers’ health needs as promised?
Not a chance-and they know it. Indeed, we are already seeing the parent companies who own these insurance operations fleeing into other types of investments. They know what we should all know – we are now on an inescapable path to a single-payer system for most Americans and thank goodness for it.
James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton
This fascinating article about how doctors handle their own terminal illnesses, given to me by my wife, is a real eye-opener about how easily things could change. If I were a more organizational type of person I would start an organization of Boomers committed to dying without extra treatment. Having been misdiagnosed with something very serious some years ago, I know I won't have much trouble refusing it.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
While I agree with most of the article, I also find it a slippery slope. Two points.
I saw my mother, who in her late eighties, go through 14 blood transfusions, exploratory surgery, long stays in ICU and much anguish. After she recovered from that, the medicine she was on to prevent more bleeds, initiated a stroke. It was down hill from there on. Eventually she ended up on hospice in a nursing home. There she fell, broke her hip in two pieces. They had to operate again, because had they not, no pain medication would have eased her excruciating suffering. After the operation she had a heart attack. The following two weeks she suffered with bed sores, infections and on and on. She eventually died this past September. It was horrible for her and painful for me to helplessly watch her deterioration.
I still question the first operation and all of the blood transfusions. But it is only questioning because she wanted to live. It wasn't my life, it was hers. Hindsight always has a clearer view. Had I known then, what I know now, I would have encouraged her to forgo it all. But..........
Then there is the wonderful doctor, Rachel Naomi Reiman, who has had numerous operations because of a terribly painful illness. Yet she chose to have the numerous operations to save her life because she knew she had a purpose. She has helped thousands with her books and workshops on compassion and empathy.
What I was uncomfortable with in regards to the article, were the numerous references to *saving Medicare money.* That had a money saving, over life, ring to it.
Yet, I for one, would not want to be hooked up to life support or have operations that extend my life, but also my suffering. There's something about the quality of life that I hope, if faced with these decisions, I would go for quality versus longevity.
This article brings up some excellent points but it also touches on the life decisions that can only be made by the patient. And I would pray that those decisions are made on the basis of quality of life and not ways to save money.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
Sadly, money is an issue. With the savings in funds from futile care, think of all the good preventive primary care could be accomplished.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
