Slashdot Mirror
US Life Expectancy May Have Peaked
Hugh Pickens writes "Live Science reports that although life expectancy in the United States has risen to an all-time high of 77.9 years in 2007 up from 77.7 in 2006, gains in life expectancy may be pretty much over, as some groups — particularly people in rural locations are already stagnating or slipping in contrast to all other industrialized nations. Hardest hit are regions in the Deep South, along the Mississippi River, in Appalachia and also the southern part of the Midwest reaching into Texas. The culprits — largely preventable with better diet and access to medical services — are diabetes, cancers and heart disease caused by smoking, high blood pressure and obesity. What the new analysis reveals is the reality of two Americas, one on par with most of Europe and parts of Asia, and another no different than a third-world nation with the United States placing 41st on the 2008 CIA World Factbook list, behind Bosnia but still edging out Albania. 'Beginning in the early 1980s and continuing through 1999 those who were already disadvantaged did not benefit from the gains in life expectancy experienced by the advantaged, and some became even worse off,' says a report published in PLoS Medicine by a team led by Harvard's Majid Ezzati, adding that 'study results are troubling because an oft-stated aim of the US health system is the improvement of the health of "all people, and especially those at greater risk of health disparities.'"
Ok, let me pee on everyone's parade and burn some karma.
> those who were already disadvantaged did not benefit from the
> gains in life expectancy experienced by the advantaged, and
> some became even worse off
Oh stop already with the politics. Stop with the infernal 'progressive' talking points and bringing class into everything. Simplify to this:
"Stupid people do stupid things that cause them to die sooner." Not that there aren't stupid people everywhere, but in America we still have the
right to be wrong to a much greater extent than the nanny states in Europe.
And since I'm burning karma anyway lemme toss another sacred cow onto the grill. Enough with this continual blather about the 'disadvantaged/poor/etc.' if you nitwits aren't going to deal with the actual problem. To a very high degree of correlation, the 'poor' aren't living in poverty because of a lack of money. They lack money because they have make poor lifestyle decisions that RESULT in a lack of money. Things like failure to get an education (or worse reject the value of knowledge entirely), become a single parent, waste money on substance abuse or Xbox... but I repeat myself.
Normally I wouldn't flame so hard but this entire article so reeks of slashkos politics I just couldn't hold back. Enough with the thinly disguised political stories outside the politics topic. Raise your hand if you actually think this was 'news for nerds' and not the DNC talking points being put into action.
I mean, seriously, take this bit:
> ..because an oft-stated aim of the US health system is the improvement
> of the health of "all people, and especially those at greater risk of
> health disparities.
WTF? I thought that was what the current argument was about, whether we were going to HAVE a single "US health system" or not. We currently don't
have a single system so how does this asshat ascribe policies to the current industry? The 'aim' of most of the people in the current semi
free market system is the same as any business. Balance customer (patient) service against earning a living.
Democrat delenda est
They have stopped human aging from getting older before it blows up an economy with useless old people. Isn't this part of the US overhaul in health care - get rid of the old and sick because they are holding the herd back?
That guys gonna be pissed he won't actually be able to live forever.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
Just remember, the USA is better at everything. Why? Because!
Don't ever question that or you'll be a traitor. Why try to change what is already perfect?
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
[citation needed]
The "US health system" has a stated aim? I thought the aim was to maximize the profits of the insurance companies, which we know can only be done by denying health care to those at greater risk. Where, exactly, is this stated?
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
... that we're going to spend over 1 trillion dollars on health care reform and our life expectancy is going to decrease?!?!?
Just wait until government Death Panels start pulling the plug on Grandmas!
What?
That's a bummer, man.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
When you look at the 20 year trend chart for obesity in the United States, it's clear that there's going to be repercussions. It's appalling what has happened. The cost of obesity isn't going to manifest right away, but over the next two decades, it's going to hit the mortality rate hard. And to think that people fear disease but don't seem to be doing too much about preventable self-inflicted health problems.
Or maybe not. Maybe only 37th.
Seriously, the way the insurance companies are sabotaging health care reform what we need is what I call the nuclear health care reform option. Maybe something like along the line of if reform doesn't pass:
1) All members of congress that blocked it must pay for their own health insurance out of their own pockets. No more public health care for them like most of them currently have through their Congressional pay and benefits package..
2) No more bonuses or stock options for the top tiers of insurance company execs as long as they deny insurance to people. And cap their pay at 100K per year and force them to pay for their health benefits out their own pocket. No health benefits as part of their compensation. They have to purchase their own plans.
If they pull the trigger and kill reform, then we should pull the trigger on them. Mutually Assured Destruction.
The only health care program that really works is the single payer option.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
All I can say is thank god we have so many people fighting against health care reform. Sure, the people with the 3rd world life expectancy might have access to preventitive health care that could bring them up to par with the dreaded Europe, but is it really worth giving in to Obama's death panel nazi plan just to save a few hundred thousand American lives??
Does anyone else see it as slightly ironic that the average life expectancy appears to be lower in the more rural areas, like the Deep South, Appalachia, and Texas? In other words, solid red state territory. And, they say that other parts (the blue states?) are on par with most of Europe. So, in other words, for the most part, the folks that are more in favor of health care reform are living longer than the people that are staunchly against it. Maybe we should just let the red states die off and that would solve a whole host of other problems! ;-)
Large portions of the low life expectancy part of America also take in close to 20% more federal funds than they put into the system. If you've ever stopped off at a gas station between New Orleans and Atlanta on I-10, you'd know how low the standard of living is there. We're talking large swaths of the states in that area with average incomes barely breaking the $20,000 mark. In defense of Texas, the portion they're talking about is between Beaumont and Texarkana, right on the border, bleeding into the Tyler/Longview area. Houston/Dallas/Austin have some of the highest standards of living (and lowest cost of living) in the country.
moox. for a new generation.
I suspect people in some cities might be surprised to hear that their life expectancies are going down. After all they've had high literacy rates, above-average educational systems, and even higher-than-average rates of medical coverage for years. Granted, when those pesky bridges fall into the river after years of neglect that might not help the life expectancy rate much...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I was going to post on this article, but I think you've said it all.
I expect your post will be highly rated for the actual duration of this discussion, but will probably suddenly drop to "0, Troll" in about three days.
Hold on there. She was in remission!
The troll bait is strong in this post.
I Want My Country Back! Death Panels! Death Panels! Death Panels!
*ahem*
Sorry, I've been watching too much tv...
Indeed. Since we are 30th in life expectancy we have a LOT of room for improvement. My best friend Jim Dawson died in 1992 two weeks short of his 40th birthday. If he would have had health insurance, he'd be alive today, bringing up our life expectancy even (a very tiny bit) more. Multiply him by all the other people who have died from treatable diseases who had no health care, and it would go up a LOT. Both my parents are past today's life expectancy.
Note that the places where expectancy is low in the US is where there's the least chance of those poor folks having insurance? How is it a suprise that without health care you don't live as long?
Free Martian Whores!
It's not even good troll bait. It's like the worst of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity rolled into some huge conglomerate of even bigger fail.
How much of that is due to homicides? How much is due to car accidents? The study does not seem to control for these factors. It's pretty much rubbish. How much of that is due to selection bias ?
I too can take the distribution of age at death, cut it in half and argue that the lower part's age expectancy is dramatically lower than the upper half.
People doing these studies are quite often bozos which start from the answer (we need socialism and redistribution) and work backward.
\u262D = \u5350
No "health care system" is going to be able to overcome the human propensity to make unhealthy lifestyle choices unless it forces people to bear the costs of those choices themselves.
Here is a comparison of life expectancies between the US and Europe.
For unadjusted life expectancy, the U.S. ranks #14 out of 16 countries, but for the adjusted standardized life expectancy, (adjusted for the effects of premature death resulting from non-health-related fatal injuries) the U.S. ranks #1.
I know the AC was trolling but Republicans on average have higher SES (socioeconomic status) than Democrats do (Subramanian, S. V., & Perkins, J. M. (2009). Are republicans healthier than democrats? International Journal of Epidemiology, doi:10.1093/ije/dyp152). Sure, people who live in rural areas tend to be Republican, but people who live in inner-cities tend to be Democrats. As the article I referenced shows, Republicans actually tend to be a little healthier than Democrats (related more to SES than anything else).
gains in life expectancy may be pretty much over
And nobody will EVER need more than 640K of RAM.
Forget the fact that things like the internet and the Human Genome project have lead to a flood of medical research, the likes of which we've never seen, that is bound to produce results.
Sorry, but that's about the most ridiculous statement Slashdot has posted today.
If the average life expectancy increased while it stagnated for some, then those who have benefited from the increase to life expectancy have experienced a higher increase to life expectancy than what the average increase suggests. How can it be anything other than good news?
US Life Expectancy May Have Peaked
Is that like saying the glass is half empty?
Isn't the headline wrong? How can "gains in life expectancy may be pretty much over" if the "The culprits [are] largely preventable." On the contrary, the headline should be "Large Gains in Life Expectancy Still Possible." I'll leave the politics and policy aside but "preventable" means preventable.
Let me get this straight- in the US, our lowest classes are so well fed, with so many calories, that they become overweight. Because they are poor, they can't afford to lose weight.
Astounding. In many other countries, the poor starve to death.
We're so rich that even the poorest of our poor is suffering from over-abundance.
Every American should take a trip to a real 3rd world country at lease once in their lifetime. It would solve a lot of the entitlement issues we have.
There were no charitable organizations or free clinics that he could have gone to? (doubtful) I also doubt that not having health care was the primary concern for this death. What was the cause?
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
I don't see why this wouldn't be a figure that would fluctuate up and down depending on what's going on in the world. Just because it goes up for a long time, and then takes a dip, doesn't mean that it's only going to go down from here out.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Oh stop already with the politics
Yeah, you'll show em when you get political on the matter!
"Stupid people do stupid things that cause them to die sooner." Not that there aren't stupid people everywhere, but in America we still have the right to be wrong to a much greater extent than the nanny states in Europe.
So then are you saying that anyone who makes less money than you is inherently stupid in comparison to you?
Enough with this continual blather about the 'disadvantaged/poor/etc.' if you nitwits aren't going to deal with the actual problem.
Then kindly enlighten us 'nitwits', if you could.
To a very high degree of correlation, the 'poor' aren't living in poverty because of a lack of money.
Really? I don't know where you live, but I haven't heard of many people who are born into families with money and then end up broke.
They lack money because they have make poor lifestyle decisions that RESULT in a lack of money.
Which is ignoring the fact that some good decisions require money...
Things like failure to get an education
That is an excellent example of one. If you are in a poor family, you might not even have access to enough credit for student loans.
Though even more so, if we want to talk about health care (which most reasonable people would agree has at least some correlation to life expectancy), we should note the relationship between health care and education:
If you want a higher education:
Hence many people of lower income status are stuck in failure spirals. While providing them with health care may not be enough to get them out, it should at least be able to help some people, both from that classification and others.
Normally I wouldn't flame so hard but this entire article so reeks of slashkos politics I just couldn't hold back. Enough with the thinly disguised political stories outside the politics topic. Raise your hand if you actually think this was 'news for nerds' and not the DNC talking points being put into action.
Were you not reading yesterday when a conservative opinion got made the slashdot front page and lead to a conservative orgy in the discussion?
But don't worry, there may be some conservatives running around with left-over mod points who will mod your post up to +5 just as they did with several from other conservative authors yesterday.
I thought that was what the current argument was about, whether we were going to HAVE a single "US health system" or not
Perhaps you haven't been reading the news? Congress gave up on single payer health care at least a full month ago. It won't happen in this congressional session, period. Really the discussion now is just on how much the democrats will fold on any sort of change whatsoever; will they fold like a nice origami piece (perhaps a swan or a dove would be nice), or completely down like a lawn chair (to be stuffed away for the indefinite future in someone's garage)?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
This might mean all those calculations projecting imminent bankruptcy of social security will have to be redone. If people are not going to live as long as they do now, there will be that much reduced pressure on the social security trust fund. Couple it with stalling the insurance reform, make healthcare more expensive, and bump another 45 million more Americans off health insurance. That way we can bring down the number of people getting on to the social security benefits and the duration also will be cut. So looks like all these problems are self correcting and they will solve themselves. Of course we may not like the way the problems solve themselves and we might personally get the short end of the stick too. But we at least know how the problems are going to solve themselves.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
When I read that, I assumed that they must be talking about North America and South America. I mean, nobody is stupid enough to call the United States Two Americas, right? Wrong..
Being poor is most likely to shorten your life expectancy and we have gutted most of the manufacturing in our rural communities. I suspect this has more to do with these areas life expectancy than government funding, education or anything else.
love is just extroverted narcissism
To a very high degree of correlation, the 'poor' aren't living in poverty because of a lack of money. They lack money because they have make poor lifestyle decisions that RESULT in a lack of money.
Yes, like choosing parents who are alcoholics and drug addicts. Like choosing to be brought up in homes where there are no books. Like choosing to be brought up by people with no connections to wealth. Like choosing to live in the ghetto with horrible teachers imprisoned in decaying schools with no school supplies.
YOU, sir, are the problem. YOU, sir, are the reason these folks are "Stupid" (your word).
become a single parent
Or are brought up by one, or worse, in a foster home.
waste money on substance abuse
Or are brought up by meth addicts and crackheads. There but for the grace of God goes YOU, and you should thank whatever deity you do or don't believe in that you weren't brought up under these circimstances. If you had been, you would now be as dirt poor as they, and you'd likely be smoking crack instead of getting drunk on fine wine and your own ignorant vanity.
Free Martian Whores!
do i need to "make this a large for 49 cents extra" or not!? i mean, there are kids in china starving to death who would gladly take the melty stuff left in the bottom of my mcflurry cup.
but thats why my jazzy chair comes with a cup holder, damnit.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Apparently the quote is from the CDC website
and THEN deciding, or does that sound un-American?
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
And don't forget the huge potential of better pre and post natal care and preventative care for children. In the U.S. our "other half" in rural areas and in big cities start life with a huge health disadvantage.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
please delete my slashdot account
No. I have family members who are unable to get their conditions treated. One has a tumor and can't afford to even get it biopsied, and can't find any agency to help. Nor could he do anything about it even if it was found to be malignant (other than die).
If people took care of their body then they wouldn't need to see the doctor's all the damn time.
Actually, there has been quite a bit of talk about prevention programs, things like physical education in school, and other inexpensive options to try to get people to take better care of themselves.
The problem is, that there is no good way to correlate it to money saved. If we spent X number of dollars on getting people to get off the couch and walking, it would be nearly impossible to say that it saved Y dollars on long-term health care (regardless of whether you choose a Y less than, greater than, or equal to X). And with all the calamity over the cost of the health care reform that hasn't yet passed either house, it is hard to sell prevention right now.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Don't eat so much! You'll live longer. Humans aren't meant to carry an extra third or more of their bodyweight in fat.
Not only will you live longer, your remaining years will be much more enjoyable without knees and hips failing under the load, diabetes and all the fun complications it brings and being unable to walk a block without having to stop twice to catch your breath. Seriously, put down the cheeseburger, turn off the tv and get up off the couch.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
PS - as few people who are born into poverty become rich as those born into wealth become poor. Like the Blood Sweat And Tears song says, "those that got shall get, those that not shall lose." There are a few, like my late uncle, who are born into near poverty and became rich, and hard work played a big part of his success, but luck played an even bigger part. Had he not been born with excellent eye-hand coordination and creativity (it runs in the family, and that's pure luck) and met his one legged business partner in the hospital (also pure luck), he would likely NOT have become rich making better artificial limbs than were available at the time. He would have been middle class, like my parents.
And had he been born in a slum he would be poor.
Your ignorance is appalling.
Free Martian Whores!
Depends on your income. If you make enough to disqualify you for the free stuff, that doesn't mean you automatically make enough to afford health insurance on your own. Rule of thumb is, if you make minimum wage, you can't get the freebies. And I'd love to see somebody pay 2200/yr for the cheapest medical insurance advertised on tv when they make about 16.5K before taxes.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
And since I'm burning karma anyway lemme toss another sacred cow onto the grill. Enough with this continual blather about the 'disadvantaged/poor/etc.' if you nitwits aren't going to deal with the actual problem. To a very high degree of correlation, the 'poor' aren't living in poverty because of a lack of money. They lack money because they have make poor lifestyle decisions that RESULT in a lack of money. Things like failure to get an education (or worse reject the value of knowledge entirely), become a single parent, waste money on substance abuse or Xbox... but I repeat myself.
Well, it has become more difficult to earn money if you are willing to work but not very educated. Low skill jobs are increasingly replaced by machines who are cheaper. So if you missed a good education because of some bad decision in your youth, or just being not bright enough, it is more difficult today to earn a living than in the 80s. Even some qualified jobs tend to be outsourced to India these days (IT support...).
And all of the plausible explanations why do have a political angle.
Globalization with more outsourcing to third world countries?
Could be slowed down by more protectionism. Which has its own disadvantages, but the decision to use more or less protectionism is a political one. Since I'm at it, here is my idea how to handle it:
Keep the international trade free as it (mostly) is, but extend the first sale doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine) to cover international sales, so parallel imports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_import) become fully legal. This way, consumer prices will be forced down and the current working poor will be financially better off.
In short: Currently globalization is mostly good for big corporations. Lets change it so the consumers profit too.
Karl Marx's predictions finally coming true?
I think there is some truth to that, and the social market economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy) in 20th century Germany was a reasonable compromise. You might strongly disagree with that, but again the decision what to do is a political one.
C - the footgun of programming languages
It isn't JUST a health care availability issue. In the US, it is largely a cultural thing too, IMHO. According to the article, it notes it is lower in the southern US. I live in New Orleans, and I can attest to how it is different down here. Food, drink and fun are such an integral part of life down here. We like our food fried, butter is your friend, etc. And down in the south, drinking is much more a part of life. I never saw people get so hot under the collar when you mentioned you got a little bombed the other night and had to be careful driving home....until I started talking to people from up north. Down here, not as much a stigma.
Heck, we still have drive through daiquiri shops down here, and bars give you a 'to go' cup to take your drink with you when you leave.
We still smoke a lot too in the south...especially in NOLA.
But, back to the food. Southern food is really good. Many of us down here "live to eat" rather than "eat to live". Obesity is huge down here. I've been changing my life around, cutting back on booze, and trying to eat better and exercise regularly, and it is still hard. You know they old saying "never trust a skinny chef"? Well, damned near everyone down here I know is at the least a great home chef...we love to cook and eat. Families still get together over food quite a bit down here...nothing like a big crawfish boil to get a group of friends to hang out, be good company and have some drinks.
Sure, we do have a large number of poor in the area...but, medicaid covers most of the truly poor, poor, poor people. The people in the projects are covered...I've seen that in practice.
And also, especially in this area...(from here to Houston really IMHO), it is known as Cancer Alley . I know the wiki says it is anecdotal, but, I've seen studies and reports on the news from the past telling that it is prevelant down here due to the large number of oil/chemical processing down here. We also are exposed to everything in the MS river, that comes from the rest of the country.
But you know...I've come to the conclusion, that there is Quality of life, vs Quantity of life. You have to strike a balance. I'd hate to life a boring, bland life that was long, than one that was a bit shorter but full of adventure, food, fun and friends. So far...I've been blessed with the latter.
I personally love living in the south, and especially New Orleans. The people are so much nicer, and you still see people being polite to each other. Quality of life vs Quantity of life.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Take a step back and ask if you believe that (a) Americans are genetically more likely to die young; (b) if America as a location is inherently more deadly from pesticides or something. Neither one flies for me.
You are left with only the two variables I can think of. Health care and lifestyle. Where "lifestyle" includes everything from "your personal diet and exercise" to "national norms in diet and exercise", to "crime" Japanese just eat less fatty foods; Europeans walk more. MOST nations have less bullet-related deaths.
A conservative of my acquaintance tried to pass it all of as the latter. I believe his harsh words were "subtract the crack babies and they're the same as Canada".
So I did some research which I alas can't cite, but it took me about 30 minutes with Google, so I'll leave it as an exercise. Limited to over-65 white males with kidney disease, Canada STILL had better survival rates. 65+ females with heart disease? Canada in the lead, by statistically significant amounts. I remember it running like that across a whole matrix of hospital-admissions reasons. Liver, digestive tract, neurological...pick your organ, it's better to get sick in Canada. The stats even apply (with much less force to be sure) for the American insured, probably because American "insurance" has a way of disappearing on you when most needed.
So, sorry conservatives, health care explains a lot. (Canada, sorry to admit, has ALL your obesity problems, and then some in a few provinces.)
Not to forget the early-deaths, but not all of those are bullet-related. A factoid from the current debate includes this one: children born into uninsured households have a 50% higher chance of dying before the age of 1. It doesn't take a lot of baby deaths to really haul down an average.
So, in summary: American lifestyles could improve. So could American health care. Blame both.
It's not improbable at all, especially if he lived in a rural area. You can't be denied care for an emergency condition in an ER, but if you're in the ER, it's an emergency. If it's an emergency brought on by a chronic, untreated ailment, odds are you're in pretty bad shape and at a much greater risk of death than if you'd been treated for the underlying cause earlier on. As an example, if you show up in the ER with an undiagnosed malignant tumor in its last stages, you can still be saved, but your odds of being saved are extremely decreased by that point.
Furthermore, many rural areas in the U.S. do not have ready access to the most modern treatment options available. If I go fifteen miles north, as the crow flies, over the mountains I can see out my front window, those people have horrible treatment options. They are, basically, limited to less than half a dozen family doctors and a small free clinic that is not capable even of treating a broken bone. The quickest access they have to modern medicine in an emergency is a 40 minute helicopter flight to the nearest university medical center.
Our doctors, hospitals, specialists, and medicines are, by and large, incredible in the U.S. Our access to them, however, is pretty sorely lacking for a great number of people.
I don't know that he's telling the truth, and I don't know that his brother/friend (sorry, I forgot the relationship) did everything he could have, but, based on the rural area I grew up and still visit sometimes, I could absolutely see how it happens.
"My understanding is that in England, most of the time if you are born in the "working class", your children will die as part of the "working class". If you look at U.S. statistics, you discover that most of the people in the bottom quarter of wealth in the population ten years ago, aren't in the bottom quarter today."
Might be true, might be false, I don't know. But I'd like to hear your references. Also - you should match like with like. You suggest people in England born poor die poor, but people in USA (of undeclared age, you're not suggesting new born) ten years later are more wealthy. This is not matching like with like. Give me equivalent statistics for both places and I'd be interested to hear more. You might expect somebody aged 20 to move up the wealth scale in both countries by the time they reach the age of 30. It's a different argument to suggest that somebody born into a socio-economic group in England is more likely to die in that group than in the USA.
Interested to read your arguments once referenced though, they are certainly an interesting theories.
One thing I learned about the US that is hard to grasp for someone from say Holland is that there are areas in the US where you just can't buy produce. No vegetables.
Sure, you can DRIVE to another area, but that costs money.
Now I can't say exactly how true this is, but the simple fact is that even in "poor" areas in holland you can easily WALK (in less then 5 minutes) to a supermarket. Often one of a regular big chain like the AH. Which carries in all its stores, fresh vegetables.
They are still relatively expensive however.
If you do the math, then cheap fast food (the cheapest no-brand frozen pizza's) can be a LOT cheaper then even buying healthy base products and making your own. Good luck making a meal for 99 euro cents (cost of a frozen pizza). That of course assumes that such fresh products are even available, which in america they apparently aren't always.
You do get fat from eating to much, but you also get fat from eating the wrong things. Eat only frozen meals and your waist line will expand.
What europeans forget is the sheer scale of america. Everything is really bigger over there and this includes the slums. What might a be a bad neighbourhood in holland, consisting of maybe a few streets, is an entire suburb housing the same number of people as major town in holland.
Amsterdam, the dutch capitol has 750.000 people and is surrounded by farm land. It would fit several times into a large american city. In fact, the entire country is less then a 1/3rd of the state of new york.
Being poor can make it very hard to eat right especially if you are in a poor area where there just ain't a market for expensive healthy food.
Compare the prices, cheapo no-brand coke vs apple juice (and I am not even talking about the stuff with no sugars or artificial flavors added).
Frozen poptarts vs fresh bread (and wonder bread does not count as bread, it is a building material).
Remember, it is not the expensive fast foods that make people fat (well they do) but the stuff we are talking about here is the no-brand really crappy cheapo kind that is decades away from cutting down on articficial flavors and saturated fats.
When I buy fries, mine are made from real potatoes, cut on the spot, properly fried in expensive fluid fat that is replaced often. When you do it on a budget, you have cheapo thin fries (more fat) that are fried in your own cooker with months old solid fat.
Poor people eat unhealthy because healthy food is really expensive. live on a budget for your whole life to find out.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The reason is simple. The US health care system has one key flaw that is the problem. All of the medical options available are for illness and injury treatment, NOT Prevention. People are allowed to grow to humongous sizes that they could stunt double for Fat Bastard and there is complaining but no real options given or pushed. The moment these people have a heart attack the medical system jumps in with drugs, transplants, continual followups, etc all costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. But only a tiny fraction is ever spent on trying to prevent them from become obese in the first place. result is bad habits, and health care costs ballooning almost as fast as waistlines and soon a dropping life expectancy. Its only because of the ability to do extensive medical treatment do many of these people even live that long.
It seems that we're interested in making some political points and (or) walking lock-step with some biases.
If you check the data from the PLoS Med citation (http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050066&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050066.g003#) you'll discover that finishing high school would appear to be a detriment to longevity (my personal guess is that a fair number of more educated folks cash in earlier due to stress).
When you talk poor and rural, there appears to be two, one in the south and one in the northern Midwest. It's true that the rural south has seen a decline, but looking at the "WebMed" citation (http://www.webmd.com/news/20060913/top-states-for-life-expectancy), unless you've got the technology to convert your genetics to become a non-Pacific island Asian (defined as America 1), you're next best bet is to join "America 2" defined as; "3.6 million low-income rural whites living in Minnesota, the Dakotas, Iowa, Montana, and Nebraska with income and education below the national average. Average life expectancy: 79 years."
My personal read with "America 2" is simply (again) a more "kicked-back" (less stress) lifestyle. In wandering the U.P. (home of the "Uppers", namely the Upper Peninsula of Michigan) if there is a common trait among the folk, is that they're simply taking it easier than most folks in urban settings. They're "in-to" out of doors (less sedentary) and if you want to get one's attention, its not by the latest fashion, but where there's a better hunting / fishing / biking / beer joint (meet a Upper and you'll understand the last item). Cars are rusty but the barrels are clean and the reels oiled.
I've added a fair amount of personal opinion, which is clearly open to argument (and I hope that any Uppers reading this do not take offense that I secretly...or at least used to secretly...covet their lifestyle) but none-the-less, if you're about to write spout off on the subject, at least read the citations.
In a nutshell, we tend to be fat and lazy, which doesn't take a high school education to figure out, and we're also way too stressed.
Greg
My condolences to you & his family.
There is a war going on for your mind.
the west coast and the east coast should join with canada and just let the fat lower middle of the usa (pun intended) descend into the third world fundamentalist hell hole it is
the civil war turned out badly. it should have been "lost" by the north. and today maybe we'd have a smaller, but much better usa without the morons in flyover country holding us back with their low iq reactionary politics
socialism! socialism!
jesus shut the fuck up you ignorant angry retards
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"And I'd love to see somebody pay 2200/yr for the cheapest medical insurance advertised on tv when they make about 16.5K before taxes."
Also, if you're in the situation the OP's friend was in you couldn't get health insurance for 10x that much money. American health insurance companies can refuse, outright, to cover you if you have a pre-existing condition. So, someone making minimum wage, and having a hard time even putting food on the table, has to choose between paying that $2200/yr in the off chance they develop a serious illness later in life, or they can go without it and be unable to receive adequate medical care should they end up getting seriously ill.
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
Somewhere down the curve it is perfectly fine to die of AIDS at 16, IF you've got it from fucking 5000 prostitutes in one day, while being high on speed and cocaine?
Though the American government seems to have taken it upon themselves to insure we all lead long, happy, tax paying lives, regardless of personal happiness.
Those evil bastards! Wanting you to live longer.
I say screw em. Take a gun and blow your brains out. That will teach them to fuck with people's happiness.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
But that's what insurance is.
These sound like the conservatives who protest health care reform and screaming about 'death committees'.
You know, the same people who take guns to presidential rallies because they can. Then scream about Bush protesters, who are exercising their freedom of speech, as being un-patriotic. while applauding the so-called "free speech" zones.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
"There were no charitable organizations or free clinics that he could have gone to? (doubtful)"
You have no personal experience with trying to get medical care while poor do you? Are you just talking out your ass? Charitable organizations willing to cover the medical bills for a major illness are few and far between in this country. Even if you happen to be in an area where there is one, you still have to get them to accept you as a case and, often, there is a huge waiting list. Don't agree? Then, put up or shut up. Name off a few such agencies yourself. If they're so common, then you must know some by name.
"I also doubt that not having health care was the primary concern for this death. What was the cause?"
Ah, the old "blame the victim" game. You know nothing about this person's situation but you are ready to assume the worst about them because it fits your personal agenda/beliefs. The truth is that not having health care leads to an inability to see a doctor for regular checkups or even minor treatment. In fact, as others have pointed out, you aren't guaranteed any health care at all unless you have an immediate emergency (and a terminal condition doesn't count until you are minutes away from death). Many serious illnesses (such as Cancer, AIDS, Gangreen, Rabies, etc.) are either easily treated if found early leading to either a cure (for gangreen and Rabis) or a vast increase in lifespan (for Cancer or AIDS). These same illnesses are virtually impossible to treat if they're only addresses minutes before they kill the patient.
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
Who says it's a smooth curve?
There will likely be many peaks in annual data.
Bad math is bad.
I never saw people get so hot under the collar when you mentioned you got a little bombed the other night and had to be careful driving home....until I started talking to people from up north. Down here, not as much a stigma.
Bombed + Driving = Bad Form anywhere.
Heck, we still have drive through daiquiri shops down here, and bars give you a 'to go' cup to take your drink with you when you leave.
God, I love NOLA. Took my first trip there this past April.
Haruumpph! Only if Obama's death panels didn't decide to euthanise him first!!
May the Maths Be with you!
Yes, bad things happen under our system, but I have a feeling this report is just propaganda. The timing is a little *too* perfect to be a coincidence.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
It's interesting that the areas with the worst health problems -- outside of some urban areas -- are also full of people who are terrified of health care reform. That may not be quite right. They're afraid of an America which is willing to take "individual rights" seriously, including a right to decent health care. 1865 redux.
The only problem with it that I see is the assumption that it's the duty of individuals to pursue the benefits of long life and accumulate property.
These may be good values to pursue as a society but one of the nice things about living in a free society is the freedom to choose different goals. If some choose to abandon the burden of education and the discipline of health maintenance in preference to short term gratification, who are we to say as individuals that they're stupid?
Some people don't want to die old, rich and well educated. They want to live fat dumb and happy.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
what exactly is this ignorant aversion to socialism all about?
if a guy breaks his leg, do you walk by him in the street?
no, you help him up
that's all universal healthcare is, on a societal scale. the cost of NOT helping those with medical need is far greater to society than helping those who are in need: a guy who can't provide for his family, a guy who can't show up for work, a mother who can't care for her chidlren, etc.: these situations have cost. add them up, and getting these people healthcare they can't afford currently means FINANCIAL SAVINGS for society
why is it you are so propagandized you can't see this?
did you ever actually stop and consider what "socialism" actually means on a philosophical level rather simply kneejerk in mindless propagandized ignorance?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Oh stop already with the politics.
Darned right.
TFA sounds like the Ministry of Truth in action.
I expect a lot of similar research reports with a message of "Oh, Horrors! US healthcare delivery is SO unequal and SO substandard!". Like "climate change" research. these projects are largely funded, directly or indirectly, by the fed, which is currently firmly in control of the Democratic Party. So a bias toward sucking up to their agenda in the hopes of continued funding can be expected - at least in the statements of conclusions. (Just like during the start of the Drug War, when the conclusions all wrung their figurative hands about how unhealthy LSD and Marijuana were, while if you actually read the data it often said just the opposite. Read back issues of journals from the late '60s and early '70s to see what I mean.)
I'll be taking any such reports that are released during the "healthcare reform" legislative push with enough salt to raise my blood pressure to life-threatening levels. Until that frenzy is over I won't even be bothering to read such reports and check their methodology.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Charitable orgs only help the poor, and he was a lower middle calss working man whose employer didn't offer insurance. He died from a massive heart attack. Mutual friends had told me he knew something was wrong months before he died; stents would have sved him.
Free Martian Whores!
Because you should be able to buy fire insurance after your house burns down.
Do you have the slightest clue how insurance works?
We like our food fried, butter is your friend, etc
That's my grandmother to a T. She grew up in a rural area where food was cooked in lard, bacon eggs and toast for breakfast, plenty of pork, butter, etc.
Her doctor told her she had high cholesterol and she had to get the cholesterol down or she'd die. The doctor died instead. So she got a new doctor, who told her the same thing. He died, too.
Five doctors later, she finally died - at age 99 when she fell in the nursing home and broke her hip.
But you know...I've come to the conclusion, that there is Quality of life, vs Quantity of life.
Grandma outlived my Grandpa, who died as a result of an industrial accident, then a second husband, who died of cancer (also work related, he was a non-smoker). She outlived three of her four sons, all of her brothers, sisters, and friends. When she was 95 she told me "I don't know why people want to live to be a hundred. It ain't no fun bein' old!"
Free Martian Whores!
You should certainly be able to buy fire insurance on your next house.
This may sound heartless, but I'm trying to figure out where people feel they should be privileged to the best medical care in the world without having to pay for it or provide back to society an equal or greater benefit. Where is the incentive for people to succeed in life? If I didn't have to pay for health care, food, and shelter... I wouldn't have a job. There's no point in working in a boring job with no motivation to leave that job for something better. In order to do that, you have to better yourself, save money, and work toward that goal. If there are no more primal cares in life then there's no point listening to some other jackoff tell you how to do your job. Just quit and live off the government.
Living in a remote area has it's advantages and disadvantages. You have to wait longer for packages, might not get cable like everyone else, you might have to travel an hour or two for a good hospital or be able to hit a store at 2am, but the advantages range from peace and quiet, personal space, privacy, and many other things that most people might never have. So you make life decisions when you choose your surroundings. I hope this makes sense. I think too many people feel they deserve health care when they don't contribute as much as someone who works their tail off at three jobs to afford it themselves. They think that they can choose to live on the peak of a mountain and expect that a helicopter team be dispatched if they have a heart attack. What makes you more important than a person growing up in Downtown Megacity?
I also have to wonder where is it written that cancer (in an above poster's example) is the great plague of our world today? It's not a contagious problem even if it's fairly widespread so it's not like having it will bring forth the extinction of human kind. It will merely shorten the life expectancy of the person with this condition. They can't accept that diagnosis? It has to be someone other person's problem now? Where is it written that I have to give up my own incentive to take care of myself to help someone else? Honestly now...if I choose to save money, not buy an Escalade, Lexus, or Acura and drive around in a Miata, what makes a person that chooses to spend liberally more important than me that they can outright demand I pay for their lifestyle indirectly?
Mark my words, if I could not afford to pay for my medical treatment, I might ask close family for help but barring that, I would not ask a stranger to pay for my life. It's just not right. I would gladly accept death.
There ARE options in life, even if they are slowly being taken away. Too many people are in "Me" mode. They don't think about their children as long as they have something. Too many people have children that can't afford them, and too many people think someone else should pay for it. There are too many people that think their life is more important to Donald Trump's life because of some arbitrary reason.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Change insurer for non-medical reasons (premium, employer change, so on)? Welcome to waitlist hell, and scrutinization for pre-existing conditions, even though the populace's preponderance for a given condition didn't change as a result of your enrollment.
It's a bastardized, one sided situation, and where health insurance is your ONLY realistic option, because collusion and collaboration between insurance providers has ensured that most healthcare rates are jacked up way out of the realm of ordinary affordability, it's very delineating, you either have, or you have not.
Pop Quiz: Do you really think your overnight stay in emergency had an actual cost of $12,000? Do you wonder why the same chiro treatment costs $50 without insurance, but they bill the insurance provider $165 for it? Do you think that the insurance carrier is covering that $115 out of the grace of their heart, or because they employ such amazingly stellar investment gurus that they can do so on the return from the dividend from your premiums?
Where's that bridge and that "for sale" sign?
Condolences on the death of your friend. I'm sure time has healed a lot of bad feelings. I'm sure you know, as only thick-skinned people post on slashdot, that the general nature here is to tear down anyone who posts. Some responses to your post seemed heartless to me, given that you're talking about the death of your friend. Don't believe that out in reader land those posters represent anything but a pathetic fringe.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
Wait, wait, wait. Exactly HOW did Obama want to prevent cost overruns ? Because there's (of course) a catch. All snake oil salesmen have catches. Big catches. So what's the catch ?
Well, I'm just an outsider, but the catch seems to be that the medical sector (insurers, doctors, pharmaceutical industry, etc.) will make less profit. And yes, that seems to be a big catch. Oddly, most handwringing doesn't seem to be about that. Well, at least not openly.
Regarding those `death panels', that is so obviously a non-starter for any politician who wants to be reelected (or has a hart), I am surprised any people fall for that propaganda. Political discussions in the USA are often not very subtle, but really. Aren't the people that bring up that kind of nonsense just laughed away?
1. What did Jim Dawson die of?
2. Given that immigrants to the US tend to have life expectancies more similar to their home country than the United States (japanese immigrants live longer than US natives, for instance) why doesn't that argue for lifestyle as the primary determining factor in lifespan?
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
The world rankings are done every year.
(The position of my country makes the news every year, and since it's not first people/media complain about problems with the health care system here.)
Thank you. It was especially hard fo rhis then-thirteen year old daughter, who was the one to find him dead.
The hardest part of getting older is outliving people, I lost four friends last year.
Free Martian Whores!
Be careful of how you calculate life expectancy. The US counts stillbirths differently than many countries. In the US, if a baby breathes then dies it has a lifespan of 1 day. In some European countries that would be considered a still birth and not counted in the statistics. Also, America is further down on the list because we have more immigration.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
I think you're missing the point, though. The point of insurance is to hedge against the odds. If you want someone to negotiate for you, you can get that, too, and pay the full cost of the treatment. But at this point, we're not talking about insurance, we're talking about forcing companies to give free medical coverage.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Do check out the blogspot post, but then check this out:
According to "OECD Economic Surveys: United States 2008", p. 137 (http://tinyurl.com/mt3g76):
"It has been claimed (Ohsfeld and Schneider, 2006) that adjusting for the higher death rate from accident or injury in the United States over 1980-99 than the OECD average would increase US life expectancy at birth from 18th of of 29 OECD countries to the highest. In fact, what the panel regression estimated by these authors shows is that predicted life expectancy at birth based on US GDP per capita and OECD average death rates from these causes is the highest in the OECD. The adjustment for the gap in injury death rates between the United States and OECD average alone only increases life expectancy at birth marginally, from 19th on average among 29 countries over 1980-99 to 17th. Hence, the high ranking of adjusted life expectancy mainly reflects high US GDP per capita, not the effects of unusually high death rates from accident and injury."
In other words, the figures in Table 1-5 are not U.S. life expectancies adjusted for fatal injuries, but rather a model that assumes that both the relationship of life expectancy to per capita GDP and injuries in the U.S. follow OECD trends.
That is - they are falsely giving the U.S. credit for having the same basic life expectancy as other other high GDP OECD countries, when in fact it is markedly lower.
Check it out for yourself, the Ohsfeld and Schneider report is at:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/9780844742403.pdf
See p. 20-21.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
I think 'partially hydrogenated oils' and (though the current fad is to say the opposite) Vitamin D supplements in milk should also be on that list.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
I'm sure excessive booze and partying takes its toll (if only to leave less time for exercise) but I believe the cancer stats about NOLA. My dad who was in the ANG down there talks about how many of his friends were lost way too early to cancer. I'm sure there's as much money spent keeping it "anecdotal" as there is money spent covering up the illegal waste dumping.
only 77 wow!! Its much higher (82) in UK. I guess our health must be generally better than the US's.
Funny how the US health care system is the most expensive (read: corrupt) in the world too.
Maybe you yanks will get a health system as good/affordable as our NHS someday.
Mark my words, if I could not afford to pay for my medical treatment...[snip]...I would gladly accept death.
Bullshit.
There are issues where state has to accept responsibility. Usually they have to do wih so called natural monopoles. It does not mean that the state has to do things - usually it can issue licenses and support the poor if they cannot afford service deemed needed for the whole public. In US big corporations have interests in not allowing the state to stir in - the view of significant amount of people is that this is right so. In Germany the predominant view is that the state should provide the service and the big business is of course eager to comply because state orders are big and regulate market to the heir wishes. The state on the other hand has no interest in changing status quo because it is nice to deal with big business of course. Fortunately the public in both countries support the view that the status quo is the best what we can get - this is the root (or bg part of) the problem - nobody is willing to see the stated issues as a problem so they are unlikely to be solved.
Even if he was obese it doesn't make his life not worth saving. There is always more a person could do and more responsibility can be pinned on people themselves, but preventable deaths needs to be prevented without blaming the victim.
In your world (where only righteous and correct people are saved) who is the person who decides who is going to be saved and who isn't? Car crashes involving alcohol or speeding, let them bleed to death? Smokers, let them die in cancer? Obese, not worth treating? Democrats/Republicans (you pick), deny seeing doctor?
Okay, so we made great advances in medicine and sanitation. That really boosted the average life expectancy and the quality of life for humanity and while things have stagnated some in many respects such as high profit patented drugs being cycled every time a patent is expired, I have to wonder if progress is being held back intentionally in the name of extending greater profits.
But what is killing us now? Okay, it's not the diseases that used to kill us. Now, more often, it's cancer caused by our increasingly polluted environment, artificial sweeteners and other flavor "enhancers" and the excessive amount of carbohydrates in the form of high fructose corn syrup and highly processed starches that literally torture our insulin organs to death giving us record high rates of diabetes and morbid obesity issues flooding our healthcare systems.
Sure, some people are insisting on organic foods and are shunning these ultra-long-shelf-life food products, but they are more expensive than their industrialized counter-parts and ridiculously rare to find and are therefore more than just inconvenient. All the while, the food industrialists are lobbying the FDA and similar organizations to redefine the word "organic" so they can put that word on more of the crap they are shovelling at us.
So where does that leave us? Longer lives due to improvements in medicine sanitation and shorter lives due to the industrialized environmental hazards we live in and ingest. Oh yeah, and let's not forget about the super-bugs we have been breeding due to our over-use of anti-biotics. We still have an ever-increasing population of old people and the problem is far worse in those countries where the food quality standards are more strict than in the U.S. (Yes, I'm talking about Japan, the first-world nation with a seeming absence of morbid obesity and EXTREMELY controlled and prohibitive food and drug market)
US life expectancy may have peaked... for now. But if we REALLY want to address the healthcare problems in the U.S., let's start at the cause of the vast majority of health problems in the first place! It's time to turn up the restrictions on the foods that are allowed for sale in the U.S. to make them healthier and safer as other nations have done and been shown to be highly effective. That would reduce the load on the health care system and insurance rates would go down with the frequency of need. Suddenly, the healthcare system is competing for customers instead of turning them away and everyone is living more healthy than ever before. In short, FIX THE FOOD and the current majority of health issues will go away thereby making traffic accidents the primary focus on preventing death and injury.
Negative sir. That's the honest truth. If I walked into the hospital tomorrow with no money, and a life ending ailment. I'd live out the rest of my life to the fullest, but I can accept death. I don't know why you can't accept that life ends... sometimes premature.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Strawman
You set up a premise based on no info, then knocked it down.
The guy exercised regularly:
http://www.simpsonassociatesinc.com/fixxbook.html
As did this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_adams#Death
At 40, it's unlikely he ate himself to death.
Either way, if he was massively obese, regular doctor visits could have help, as might of psychiatric treatments.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
And?
She's an exception. Good for her, and I hope those genes have been passed on, but it doesn't mean you should gorge yourself on fried food everyday.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Then there is me, who I scrimp and save even though I don't "Have to". I own my car, lock stock and barrel because I bought a used car. I own my own residence because I scrimped and saved so I could get a decent down payment on it and scrimped some more to pay it off ahead of time. I buy generic food at the grocery store and take other cost cutting measures. I don't buy expensive clothes and don't have an alcohol or drug habit."
When hyperinflation hits, you're the sacrificial lamb. A net debtor like me (vehicle plus mortgage, nothing else) will watch in relief as 30 years of future debt turns into something that can be paid off with change from the purchase of a loaf of bread, while the savings of people like you turns into dust as you watch.
Would be funnier if it wasn't true.
I am not arguing that he doesn't have a right to be saved. I am arguing that the he is the person most responsible for saving himself. If people don't take care of themselves NO amount of medical treatment can save them. I am saying to the OP that better access to health care might have saved him, or maybe not eating that umteenth BigMac would have saved him. The OP is arguing that better health care was necessary to save him. I question THAT claim. Because this is all speculation I would like to reiterate that if he was a healthy, active person my most sincere condolences go out to his loved ones.
People think much too small... unhealthy lifestyles, poor decisions, evil corporations. But what's the cause of it all?
Malthus has the answer... it's a trap. As populations grow they strain limited resources: clean water, quality food, convenient housing, affordable health care. These constraints then start to limit population growth. Lower life expectancies is one small signal that this is happening. People live shorter lives, a net decline in population.
What are large changes in population? Famine, disease, genocide, and WAR. These happen when scarce resources are pushed to their limit. But survivors are joyous when they do, since they have abundant resources left over just for them. Nobody ever has sympathy for the dead.
The last time this happened was WWII. The "good" war was good for the USA because much of it destroyed a large chunk of population in Europe and Asia, leaving the scarce resources for us. I believe this explains most of the good years following the war, up until lately.
No, healthcare in America is the furthest bastard stepchild from insurance you can find. And I write claims adjudication software for the insurance industry. Have a heart attack, but the insurer finds that you forgot to mention that when you were 12 you had an appendectomy? Denial of coverage. Insurer decides that the treatment, available in every Trauma I in the country, is 'experimental'? Denial of coverage.
Really? Interesting. I've never been denied coverage for anything. Tonsillectomy to treat chronic hypertrophy of the tonsils... pre-existing. No problem. Congenital perforation of the abdominal wall (3 umbilical hernia) Covered. My ex-wife's Crohn's disease... across three different changes in service? Covered. My Dad's HBP ? Covered.
Incidentally, most states have a High Risk plan that you can buy into. They are intentionally affordable and subsidized by the standard payers. Usually the insurance companies have to cover a percentage of the High Risk pool equivalent to their percentage of market share in that state.
Change insurer for non-medical reasons (premium, employer change, so on)? Welcome to waitlist hell, and scrutinization for pre-existing conditions, even though the populace's preponderance for a given condition didn't change as a result of your enrollment.
Man... You life sucks. I've never been subjected to these circumstances despite changing providers at least 10 times.
It's a bastardized, one sided situation, and where health insurance is your ONLY realistic option, because collusion and collaboration between insurance providers has ensured that most healthcare rates are jacked up way out of the realm of ordinary affordability, it's very delineating, you either have, or you have not.
Agreed. To a certain extent. However, I have a great many people in my family that are dirt poor and have pre-existing conditions. We manage to get them care and coverage either through a Medicare/Medicaid plan, direct negotiation with healthcare providers, or channels through charities and/or no-profits. I have the poorest relatives that you could imagine, and I've yet to see one suffer from a condition because of money. Sometimes ignorance, often obstinence, but never money.
Pop Quiz: Do you really think your overnight stay in emergency had an actual cost of $12,000? Do you wonder why the same chiro treatment costs $50 without insurance, but they bill the insurance provider $165 for it? Do you think that the insurance carrier is covering that $115 out of the grace of their heart, or because they employ such amazingly stellar investment gurus that they can do so on the return from the dividend from your premiums?
Where's that bridge and that "for sale" sign?
It may take footwork, but you can get everything you need, even if you have something as horribly expensive to treat as Crohns.
Anecdotally, when I lived in London my future wife's flatmate had a sick grandmother that they flew out of country to get treatment because the last time she had the same sort of problem, she nearly died while waiting.
U.S. life expectancy went up, but it seems like apologists were quick to realize this could be used by anti-healthcare folks so they were fast to say "But it should have gone up faster!"
I'm all for universal hc, but spin is spin no matter where it comes from. Even if it IS true, the timing for this is still suspicious. Eh, I guess that's politics as usual though.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
There's an elephant in the room that is being ignored. The AMA artificially limits the number of doctors and nurses available, which drives up prices. As the baby boomers age, it is going to get worse.
If you increase the supply of doctors and nurses, the shortage will decrease and prices will drop. Unfortunately, the AMA would switch from being a strong supporter of health-care reform to a strong opponent and it would be more difficult to pass.
> What about our obesity problem, which is causes by diet and lack of exercise (in most cases)?
Other countries, like Canada, have obesity problems, too. He said that our *higher* death rates are due to it. So if you have the same problem with obesity in both countries, it's irrelevant (even though it does, in fact, cause lots of deaths).
So, IRTFOPMA (I Read The Fine Original PLoS Med Article), and it seems the problem is going to solve itself. According to this graph, we'll run out of Republicans if health reform doesn't get passed.
Um. I grant that the US produces some excellent cooks, and that Southern US 'home cooking' might be very nice. But I don't believe that it is so much better than the rest of the world that it would drag your flipping life expectancy down so far!
In other words, I think the French, Germans, Italians, New Zealanders have discovered butter, and occasionally get bombed. They don't all die young. Some of them can even cook OK.
false. You might want to rad the bill.
No wher ein the bill are the elderly denied health care. no. where . at. all.
Oops, Someone with facts on /., what is the world coming to.
The panel you mention is only there in case soeone wants to discuss the end of life plan.
Do you want to be on a respirator? then fine. You don't? then fine. and everything in between.
I've seen pretzel less twisted then that lie.
You go ahead and read you 'articles' but keep quite while the grown-ups are dealing with actual information. Let us know when your grown up enough to be a contributor to the debate.
Idiot.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Are you fucking serious? This guy is talking about a family member with a potentially life threatening illness that can't be treated due to inequitable nature of our society and you suggest he eat a zero carb diet?
Of course cancers feed off sugar, cancer is YOU gone haywire, your body metabolizes sugar preferentially and so would cancer. But just like the rest of your body, any cancer (other than a brain tumor, and your body WILL PRODUCE the glucose needed to feed your brain and then a brain tumor) could metabolize any other source of energy as well.
Let me guess, your suggestion to someone with a bad computer virus would be to unplug the PC as the virus feeds off of electricity.
Somehow, I have a feeling your tune would change pretty fast if put to the test. Reality has a way of making lairs of us all.
Great Intellect...
Funny you mention this, my step-dad is dying (6 months to a year) of a cancer (bladder) with a pretty high remission rate that has metastitized because he decided to go the "natural medicine" route instead of chemo & radiation. One of the things the *quacks* he went to had him try was exactly what you mentioned. It's bullshit. The "alkaline-body" treatment is bullshit as well. The quacks that spread this nonsense are making money off killing people as far as I am concerned. He's now taking radiation, but basically, he's not going to make it.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Hardest hit are regions in the Deep South, along the Mississippi River, in Appalachia and also the southern part of the Midwest reaching into Texas. The culprits -- largely preventable with better diet and access to medical services -- are diabetes, cancers and heart disease caused by smoking, high blood pressure and obesity.
And those are the areas of the country that most consistently vote Republican, i.e., against their own best interests. But hey, at least dem fags ain't gunna git mur-reed!
If your house is robbed and you make a claim, then a tree falls on your roof the year after and you make a claim, then your house burns down and you make a claim, will they insure your next house??
No, because most of my countrymen are functional retards unfortunately.
There is a war going on for your mind.
He is. That guy has no fucking clue what he's going on about.
There is a war going on for your mind.
How is that doubtful? Throughout my life I have lived and stayed in dozens of U.S. locales and the sort of clinics you are speaking of only exist in major cities.
Having been to said clinics they provide a dramatically inferior level of care, waits that often involve people dying on the floor waiting for care, typically little or no preventative care, and they exclude anyone with something resembling income whether it is disposable or not.
That 100,000 times statistic. Would that be based on the number of drunk drivers caught or the actual number of drunk drivers on the road. 100,000 times per mile driven seems excessively high.
Why do you feel entitled to freedom of speech? There is no such thing, inherently. There is no universal rule that you must be allowed to speak freely. If that right is taken from you and you're silenced, the universe will simply continue on as if nothing happened, save for the immediate differences it makes in your tiny little insignificant piece of this planet.
Some of us simply believe that in an affluent and supposedly just society we should view the situation as a moral prerogative. If you disagree, that's fine, but, frankly, it's a pretty crummy way to view the people around you. I tend to view human life as a little more valuable than that. Honestly, I've seriously tried to get my wife to leave this country because of people like you, though. What sense is there in living in a "society" that views its citizens with such incredible contempt that you would even think to say something so ridiculously callous and selfish? We might as well just revert to animalistic anarchy and let the strong cull the weak. A situation, I might add, you likely wouldn't survive (nor I).
I'm going to go ahead and say the odds are pretty well-stacked against that being true. I'm sure there are a very few people like that around, but if I had to bet and you really went to your deathbed, I'd go ahead and lay down a pretty heft sum that you're full of crap with that statement.
Like the people who value green paper in their wallet over an actual human's life?
Haruumpph! Only if Obama's death panels didn't decide to euthanise him first!!
You've been listening to Sarah Palin too much. You know her. She's the one that got kicked out of the Governor's office for being unethical.
You and Palin give conservatives a bad name. Is it ever going to be possible for people like you to use facts for persuasion rather than outright fabrications? You realize that the type of intellect you display is the one of the reasons we are in the worst economic shape since the Great Depression. You can start by explaining how the panel will make their euthanasia decisions. Please summarize the exact process of decision making that Obama has proposed in outline form.
Oh, you can't? Ok. STFU then.
Just callin' it like I see it.
Reading comprehension - what a concept.
The article says that rich people may see room for improvement, while po' folks are slipping. No surprises there, right?
Now, look around and check out the stats for the poverty level. More and more of America is being pushed into the po' folks category, while fewer and fewer people manage to claw their way into the country clubs.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that poor kids growing up in the ghettos can't afford to have heart surgery, a kidney replacement, chemotherapy, etc etc like the kid who went to an Ivy League college.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
You probably won't become rich, but you can work 2 jobs and build your child a better foundation from which THEY can climb, ultimately improving the lives of your grandchildren and greatgrandchildren.
50% of the US population doesn't even work one job, let alone two. What possible motivation would I have to work two jobs in order to pay for a bunch of worthless moochers and "not become rich"?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Jeez, not even Douglas Adams could afford health insurance? We're in trouble.
"allocation of medical care based on "how valuable you are to the government"
I've got news for you - we already have that. The insurance company won't cover you, or you simply can't afford the rates they set, or the insurance company simply denies claims. In short, you only survive if you are valuable to some corporate headquarters, ie, they can see how to make a profit off your lame ass.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
It's really easy to blame insurance companies, especially since the Democrat party has been on the propaganda trail blaming the insurance companies, but they've actually been quite acquiescent about the whole thing.
this is the image they have cultivated, but its a lie.
The truth is while the insurance companies themselves claimed they were for reform, they shadow-funded several groups which are out there right now undermining reform and propagating lies through TV spots and astroturfing.
Hint: those TV spots you see talking gloom and doom are NOT from the RNC, and certainly not the democrats. Theyre the health reform version of "hands off the internet", the notorious anti-neutrality astroturfing group.
I can tell you as a person who is "uninsurable at any price" because of crohns while 600 lb men get coverage for gastric bypasses that the insurance companies ARE to blame, they are responsible for every single massive lie being propagated today. It's vicious, ugly, and criminal what they're doing to make sure people like me, who are crippled by easily managed chronic conditions, remain bankrupt and suffering.
You may not like their solutions, but that's ok, we can come up with a solution. But believing that a single payer system will magically solve everything is just silly. Such a drastic overhaul of any system is likely to cause more problems than it solves.
yes, there are so many horrible problems that every other industrialized nation has one, and anyone in those nations suggesting getting rid of them is marginalized as a dingbat (if they say so from a political office, they don't have it in the next year).
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
with a coherent response. that was charitable of you
socialist healthcare has absolutely every problem you ascribe to it, and more
but what you fail to see is our current system is even WORSE than that
i don't appreciate universal healthcare single payer because it will make cotton candy come out of my ass and my grandma to come back to life, i appreciate universal healthcare because its BETTER than the bullshit we have now
take any negative you can launch at "socialist" healthcare and our current system fares worse:
1. bureaucratic waste: you ever actually deal with an hmo?
2. rationed care. what the hell do you think that hmo worker in a cubicle looking at your charges and saying "approved" "denied" is doing?
3. shoddy care: ever been to an emergency room? why is every poor person there gumming up the system? furthermore, with socialist healthcare, you get an emphasis on PREVENTATIVE medicine so you don't even need to cut your foot off from diabetes or get a heart transplant for cardiomyopathy
4. underpaid doctors who don't care: your doctor looks at you now as nothing more than a series of expensive tests to run in order to get paid more, while the hmo is doing its best to deny those expensive tests. where's your actual well-being in that mix?
etc., etc.
borrowing liberally (pun intended) from winston churchill: socialist healthcare is the worst system of healthcare in the world... except for every other form of healthcare that has been tried
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Negative sir. That's the honest truth. If I walked into the hospital tomorrow with no money, and a life ending ailment. I'd live out the rest of my life to the fullest, but I can accept death. I don't know why you can't accept that life ends... sometimes premature.
If you were drowning in a lake, and there were people standing by the lake who were capable of pulling you out and saving you, and those people just stood there - would you then accept death?
I suspect you'd spend your last few minutes being extremely pissed off and wondering why the hell they weren't throwing you a rope.
They weren't throwing you a rope because it was too much hassle, or too expensive.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Do you wonder why the same chiro treatment costs $50 without insurance, but they bill the insurance provider $165 for it?
I can't speak for everyone, but I know why we bill that way: because the insurance companies will pay a set percentage of the "reasonable and customary" charge for each procedure performed. If that currently happens to be 30%, then a $50 procedure gets billed at $165 so that it actually gets reimbursed at $50. If notice comes down that the new rate is 25%, then expect that to go to $200 overnight. There's also the need to periodically raise rates above the reasonable and customer charge to pull the average upward. If everyone starts billing $200 for the $165 procedure, then insurance will only "allow" $165 at first and will reject the extra $35. After a few years, they'll adjust the allowance to some multiple of the new rate.
Yes, it's horribly screwed up. That's still better than travesties like Medicaid that often reimburses for procedures at less than the cost of the supplies needed to perform them. Yes, you read that right. There are certain billing codes that Medicaid pays at about 5 to 10 percent of what insurance would. It's hard to make up profits with volume when you are literally, tangibly losing money on each treatment. That's why almost no doctors will see new Medicaid patients without a referral from a colleague. Every doctor I know does a lot of free/charity work, but you have to save some time for paying patients if you want to keep the doors open.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
is one of the most paramount concepts in this world
you should be punished for the poor choices you make in life
absolutely
well, you know, you turned down that road in a rain storm, should have known better. so yes, you've called emergency services on your cell to report that you slid off the road, but you know what? emergency servies is really expensive. so we're going to force you to walk back to town in the rain for 20 miles, to teach you a lesson
look: you punish people for making bad choices in this world. ABSOLUTELY. but in a CIVIL society the punishment is always LESS in impact than the actual CRIME. it HAS to be. why?
in sharia law, you get your hand cut off for stealing. you get stoned to death for adultery. why is this wrong? because the punishments are worse than the crime. this makes for a less civil society, it rots society, it does not increase people's sense of responsibility, it just rots the very social fabric because society itself is now promoting crime itself
when a kid steals from the proverbial cookie jar, you give them a spanking and send them to their room. do you lock them in their room and don't feed them for a week? why is this wrong? what are you teaching your child about "personal responsibility" in that scenario? do you understand the punishment has to be calibrated to the crime?
in the same way, you are basically saying: "i'm sorry you are poor and have diabetes, but if you don't have insurance, you have to have your foot cut off. next time, you will learn to keep a job, even in a tough economy, to pay for your diabetes treatments. learn personal responsibility next time"
are you beginning to understand me?
the actual effect of your so-called "moral" position: a punishment worse than the crime. rotting the richness (literal, financial) of society by rotting people's concept of right and wrong. the guy who can't provide for his family because his arm is broken and he can't get it fixed at the hospital becaus ehe has no insurance leads hungry mouths to feed. one of those hungry mouths will rob you on the street. so do you "teach a lesson" to that hungry mouth about personal responsibility and send him to jail, which you have to pay for? maybe its CHEAPER just to fix the fucker's arm in the first place, no?
if you don't have a job, and you have diabetes, in the country with the best healthcare imaginable, your life is still a living hell of consequences for poor choices. enough to teach people to act better. your whole: "bad choice"="punishment" STILL APPPLIES. but you don't let them lose their foot! not because you are bleeding heart liberal who thinks death row inmates deserve better healthcare than hard working honest folks, but because in a civil society, the punishment for crimes is always LESS the crimes itself
or society rots, because then society is the criminal
that's the fucking honest to goodness truth
ruminate, and learn, ignorant motherfucker, and don't talk to me about morality, as you don't even fucking understand the concept
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
marry me
i'm joking of course, but with all of my liberalness, that obviously makes a socialist muslim homosexual, so it's all good
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Also, 640K of memory is enough for everyone!
If you think life expectancy has peaked, you're an idiot... We're just getting warmed up...
hard core geek-ware
is not done because you have a cattle prod at your ass of death and disease
personal responsibility is an aspect of higher character that develops in a social environment of modest rewards and modest punishments
in other words, if the social safety nets aren't there, you don't suddenly create people with more personal responsibility
you have the same amount of people with little personal responsibility in a society with a lot of social safety nets as you do in a society with no safety nets
except now they don't have a foot because of diabetes, so they can't provide for their family, so that hungry mouth tries to mug you, so you have to pay for their jail cell
or how about you just pay to fix the motherfucker's diabetes in the first place so he still has a foot and save yourself some dough you ignorant propagandized moron?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
After a long career in the tourism and non-for-profit sector, my brother became fond of the statement "the first rats off a sinking ship are the best swimmers". When this happens, the contrast ratio tends to increase, leaving a dysfunctional organization ever more dysfunctional. If the best and brightest of rural America are heading into the cities, the same applies. Averaged across America as a whole, nothing has changed, but you do have a slightly smaller, more woeful bucket.
Arthur Benjamin suggests we have the wrong focus in our math education. We should be teaching statistics, not calculus.
Arthur Benjamin's formula for changing math education
A typical person, after learning some calculus in high school, applies this skill precisely zero times in the rest of their adult life.
Statistics, however, is something we encounter on a daily basis, such as this article, with its potentially bamboozled statistical claim (did it properly account for a selective migration effect? Impossible to say from the story summary.)
People tend to have a relatively poor intuitive grasp on statistics, yet it impacts many of our daily decisions. Worse, even among those who have a reasonable grasp of statistics, few have a solid handle on robust statistics, which can be surprisingly subtle.
Bart Kosko (Edge.org is link challenged.)
Does everyone know the old joke that you can take the dumbest guy from a room of 50 pound foreheads and move him into a room of evolution deniers, and the average IQ in both rooms increases (really). This is just to point out that it matters how you draw the lines, as every corrupt politician knows instinctively. It doesn't mean that a single additional person voted in favour of the corrupt politico, yet moving the line can still result in victory.
On another front, urban migration is a fact of the modern world.
Stewart Brand on squatter cities
I have a friend who paddles at an elite level. As the club where she presently rows, the coach recently decided to split the top six athletes three each in an A and B boat. Two things happened: A) the race time averaged across the two crews improved, B) neither boat medalled. The six elite athletes were not impressed.
In Canada, we're inclined toward this kind of social experimentation. I deliberately live on the edge of a slightly seedy area of town, because I oppose further polarization (seedy by Canadian standards is no great hazard to life and limb).
In America, the balance is tipping so that one more year of life for some rich old white fart is procured at great expense, while a far cheaper intervention for an inner city black kid, who might live another twenty years with the benefit of treatment, is often neglected.
Here's an interesting question for debate: how does our widespread statistical ignorance bias social policy? If schools taught statistics instead of calculus, would the coefficient on power-law wealth distribution change one way or the other?
have you ever dealt with an hmo?
do you know how much paperwork are current system entails? how much money is wasted in the shuffling around of forms between entities and fighting about line item approved and denieds?
a government system would be chock full of bureaucratic waste, just as you say
and it would still be more efficient and less wasteful than what we currently have!
wake the fuck up you propagandized fool
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You, sir/ma'am , are an idiot.
Because you should be able to buy fire insurance after your house burns down.
Do you have the slightest clue how insurance works?
Here's what would happen if fire insurance were like health insurance.
Under this system fire insurance is provided by your employer, who gets a group discount from the insurance companies. Neither your employer nor the insurance company is allowed to disclose how much the insurance costs, because they both consider it a trade secret. Once a year, in November, you get the chance to change your fire insurance company if you are unhappy with them. But since you probably haven't had a fire, what is there to be unhappy about?
If you lose your job, you lose your fire insurance but the insurance company is required by law to allow you to pay an exorbitant sum to continue your insurance for 6 months. They will also allow you to buy a cheaper plan, which will replace your house with a tent if it burns down. By the way, the most common way to lose your job is to have a house fire.
If you are self employed or unemployed, you might be able to buy insurance. It will be much more expensive than the group plans that employers get. You will also be disqualified if you have had a fire in the past, smoke, or have been seen with matches or a cigarette lighter.
The way the fire insurance system works is that your insurance company will provide you a list of twenty fire inspectors. You are required to have a fire inspector in order to get access to a fire station. You will call all twenty and their secretaries will tell you that they aren't taking any new clients. You will eventually get taken on by one of them because your mother is one of his clients.
The inspector is paid a flat fee per year per client by the insurance company. He gets paid this amount whether he inspects your home or not. Each time he does inspect your home he might get a small payment from the insurance company, but you need to give him a $20 additional payment. This is to encourage you not to get your home inspected. If your home has apparent problems that need further investigation, the inspector does not get additional payments from the insurance company. If your home needs repairs to prevent a fire, the insurance company will pay for them, but the inspector might get charged a fee for referring you to a contractor. This is to encourage your fire inspector not to refer you to a contractor to perform repairs.
The fire inspector contracts with a fire station to handle emergencies. It might not be the closest fire station to your home. None of the firefighters working at the fire station are employees of the fire station. They are all independent contractors who are paid by the person who has a fire, or by the insurance company. The only employees at the fire station are the 35 people they have on staff to handle billing the 65 insurance companies that they contract with.
If you have a fire, the first thing you do is call your fire inspector. If he agrees that there is a fire, he will call the insurance company to get authorization to call the fire station. Some fraction of the time these authorizations will be denied.
When the fire station gets the call they will also call the insurance company for authorization. When each fireman gets to the house, they will ask for a copy of your insurance card before putting out the fire. If any of the people involved forgets to get authorization, they won't be paid by the insurance company. They will either bill you, or eat the expenses.
Fortunately it was just a minor fire entirely contained in a frying pan. After the fire has been put out, and a contractor has started repairs, you will receive a bunch of bills that have "THIS IS NOT A BILL" written on them. You will get one from each fireman, one from the fire station, one from your fire inspector, one from the contractor who is repairing your house and one from each of the construction workers the contractor has hired. They will come wit
Support SETI@home
Your gran rules.
Cancers feed off of sugar, and a carb-free diet might help.
Wow, you sure picked a fitting username.
Sometimes having a Doctor wave some lab reports in front of your face and saying your gonna die soon is enough to galvanize someone into taking care of themselves.
I have a friend here in Canada who at 40 went for a checkup, got told he was a prime candidate for a heart attack any day. He changed his diet, slowed down on the work and started exercising. Next Doctor visit is more positive (nice to have feedback that your doing right). He's over 50 now and doing fine.
Sometimes we need reminding of our mortally so we do take care of ourselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
As I stated in my first post: If he died from obesity, shame on his family for not helping him. Shame on them for letting someone eat themselves to death. If I die because no one tries to stop me from killing myself then my family and friends DON'T deserve condolences. Friends don't let friends kill themselves.
Isn't it obvious? First they'll check if you're a Christian(TM). Then they'll see if you're a Republican(R). Then they'll check if you Love Freedom(c). The second you trigger their commi-socalo-facist True Blue Patriot detector, you'll be as good as dead. I watch Fox News! I listen to conservative radio! I'm a member of the K^CNRA. I know what's going on!! You can't fool me!!! This is socialism!!! SOCALISM!!! Our great nation is being taken over by the Soviets!!!! Pretty soon we'll all be speaking Russian!!!!!!!!!!!! I've got my Rifle and the Lord At My Side!! I'm ready to DEFEND the Homeland!! RONNIE!!!! Can you HEAR meee?!?!?! I'm FIGHTN' For Ya Ronnie!! You and Dick Nixon and George W. Bush!!!!
GOD SAVE FREEDOM!!!!!!111
WWWOOOOOOSSSHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
May the Maths Be with you!
First off: credit to you for presenting an actual policy argument in a time when so many conservatives appear to have completely lost their minds.
That said, a couple of problems with the argument.
The first: in general, if the central core of an argument relies on an examination of how rationing works in a system with a fully nationalized industry, then it's not likely to be an apt comparison.
The system under discussion when we talk about the "public option" isn't anywhere near a single-payer system -- let alone actual socialized medicine like the NHS. There are real distinctions between these, they don't all collapse into insignificant differences behind an event horizon of government involvement as some people seem to suggest. If you think about it, unless all medical professionals are employed by the government (NHS) or there are explicit laws against personal funding of medical care, the scenario you quoted from the article is simply impossible. And I haven't seen any evidence that anything like either of those provisions is in the proposed legislation.
The second one... like rationing, there's no getting around the fact that someone will decide who gets treatments and, who doesn't. The state is far from a completely trustworthy entity, and I'd agree in an instant that wherever it has *any* responsibility -- let alone over life and death -- there needs to be real watchfulness and accountability. The thing is, the mechanisms for this are already at least to some degree built into our state system. There's nothing comparable in private insurance. A lot of the "market forces" that work to make private enterprise efficient and responsive in other industries aren't present here: insurance isn't driven by studied consumer choice, you can't easily make another choice and move to another insurer once you've developed a need for the insurance, and there's a *huge* information and power asymmetry between most insurers and their clients. Even the courts don't work well as mechanisms of accountability. MEGA Life & Health has been in and out of court for bad faith denial of claims and has settled or been ruled against in class action lawsuits... and they're still out there, operating and selling.
Handing anybody power over life and death is worthy of close examination, but the fact is, someone will have to do it. It's far from clear that the government is any less trustworthy than the private sector, and it's at least theoretically more accountable.
Tweet, tweet.
skyrocketing healthcare and insurance costs plus economic contraction has led to less people with health insurance year over year this decade.
Correlation may not be causality, but you tell me if you think having health insurance affects your longevity. Some think so.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Any number of congenital diseases can take you out instantly with out warning, and with out regular check ups it's impossible to even know you have them. Take Three's Company's John Ritter. Took care of himself, died at 50 because an aortic dissection took his heart out with no real warning.
If you feel like crap for MONTHS, then die, that's not your fault for taking care of yourself. It might be your fault if you had health coverage and you refused to use it, but it's not you abusing your own body with improper diet or lack of exercise.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Some people try to live a long time by eating right, exercising regularly, keeping a close eye on their medical needs, and basically taking good care of themselves.
And, for the most part, those who stick with it probably will live a lot longer than their peers.
Which means....provided they don't suffer some unexpected injury...that they will live long enough to watch everyone they love die.
They will wind up old and utterly alone...and that is the best case scenario.
I know all you slavishly leftist Slashdotters of the current age think that Sarah Palin is a moron. But, she's got everyone using the term "death panels," doesn't she? Maybe she's not so dumb, after all, eh? The answer to the shortcomings of private insurance bureaucracies is not bigger bureaucracies, it's putting the decision-making back into the hands of patients.
if someone can't AFFORD healthcare, do you let them die?
then stop it with the free market nonsense
free markets do NOT apply to something like healthcare, its a need that doesn't fit the philosophical underpinnings of what makes free markets work in CERTAIN human endeavours
applying the free market model to ALL human endeavours is some sort of monomaniacal fundamentalist insanity
free market is not a religion, or at least, it shouldn't be. unfortunately, you seem to be some sort of blathering free market fundamentalist idiot
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
And yet...more and more yankees keep moving down here each year....for some reason.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
An when you are uninsured, as I have been, you pay the $165. I shelled out $40K from my own pocket when I had Lymphoma. At the rate I had paid for CORBA till I was forced to drop it, I figured I could still afford to have cancer every 5 years, and still come out ahead. Would you believe $35 for a single Tylenol? It's nuts.
The system under discussion when we talk about the "public option" isn't anywhere near a single-payer system
You are absolutely correct... for now. Individuals will have a choice as to stay with their current private coverage or to go with the new government option (now called "public option).
Of course, the government option will have to be as good as any private insurance, right? Otherwise why have it? If health insurance is a right, then everyone, regardless of income should have equal access to it.
Next, it will have to cheaper than private insurance. The whole point is universal coverage. That means the poor should be able to afford it as well. The only way the poor will be able to afford it is if it's cheap. How do you make it cheap? Well, tax the rich, of course. (Obama has already stated that this is how it will be paid for)
So now you have a competitor to the private sector that is just as good or better than the private sector, at half the cost. It is financed by the American taxpayer so it can profit is not a concern. For that matter, it doesn't have to break even. It can lose billions of dollars every single year and it does not matter. Oh, and it can make it's own rules because it has the backing of the United States Congress. They are the people who write laws.
Now tell me. How long do you think it will take before every private health insurance company is out of business? Obama says 10, 15 or 20 years.(watch the whole thing, but it's about 50 seconds in where he says eventually, he plans for there to be a single payer system.)
Handing anybody power over life and death is worthy of close examination, but the fact is, someone will have to do it. It's far from clear that the government is any less trustworthy than the private sector, and it's at least theoretically more accountable.
If an insurance company screws over enough of its customers, word gets out and it loses its customers and goes out of business. It has to keep a vast majority of its customers happy or they'll become the competition's customers.
But you are correct about one thing. If there is going to be a single payer system, I would prefer that the monopoly be the government and not some corporation. But we don't have a monopoly now and we won't if we keep the government out of it.
With that said, I agree that there needs to be reform. For example, I don't believe an insurance company should allowed to consider your health history when providing coverage or deciding what to charge. They should not be allowed to drop a customer for any reason other than lack of payment, and in the case of unemployment due to the illness, the government should pick up those payments as part of unemployment benefits. But we don't need the government to compete directly with the insurance companies.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I'm not sure if you are in the U.S, but the premise here is that Freedom of Speech is an inherent right. In fact, I would venture to say it falls under Liberty, which we consider one of the inalienable rights granted by our Creator, if you happen to have one. And if your Creator grants it, then that pretty much makes it a universal rule.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Calling Sarah Palin a moron is insulting to morons everywhere.
Palin is the assumed leader of a highly retarded group of people. When she speaks of death panels or really anything, the rest of us talk about it, sure. But we are mostly laughing at her while we wondering how could she possibly be this retarded. Trust me, this is not a good thing and nothing to be proud of.
Kinda ironic how this study was released at the same time the brouhaha surrounding Nationalized Health Care and "Death Panels" is going on.....
BTW..... Am I the *only* one making Soylent Green jokes about the whole Health Care thing???
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Some people in this world still have pride, pride enough to not be dependent on strangers.
Yes, it's a strange idea that even seems to be dying out in America where
the notion of the state being your nanny has become more en vogue. The
government should be the solution of LAST RESORT, not the first thing you
look to.
It should be easier to get an affordable private plan and to get a plan independent
of an employer that will probably lay you off next month anyways. The problem of a
system of employer dependence that is not working is NOT to make people dependent on
any even larger beaurocracy.
The solution is to allow people to better fend for themselves.
Of course the problem with that is that even allegedly well educated individuals
don't grasp the fact that there is no free lunch. If you think you are getting
something for free, more likely than not you are still paying for it (just on the
sly).
The notion that we can throw around some magical pixie dust and suddenly everything
will cost less is just out of touch with reality. Making the relevant beaurocracies
bigger isn't going to help or improve anything.
The ones we have need to be trimmed down, not replaced with much larger siblings.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> You have no personal experience with trying to get medical care while poor do you?
Apparently you don't either.
I have relatives that are genuinely "poor". They have no problems getting medical care.
The system already provides for the "poor". The problem is with people that should be
able to fend for themselves but for some reason or another there is a pervasive
perception that they can't or shouldn't be bothered.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Please please... no more noodles in cold green tea. I don't care how long I will end up living!
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
After I read your other comments (after I posted), I expected a woosh from you. There is a such thing as being a little too dry, you know.
Just callin' it like I see it.
I know all you slavishly leftist Slashdotters of the current age think that Sarah Palin is a moron.
Don't confuse intelligence with slavish leftism. It's a common mistake, but you are not excused. Sarah Palin is dumber than her daughter Trig. She was the most damned idiotic VP pick in presidential history. She'd lose a spelling bee to Dan Quayle. She is the #1 reason I gave up on McCain. She ruined the republican ticket this time around.
What you need to do is to go get your bible and thank your lucky fucking stars and God himself that she will never be anywhere near the White House save for a global lead overdose and pandemic retardation.
I also suggest that you read up on the health care/insurance reform debate. I don't know if the Obama plan is the right one, but we are on a path right now to a ruinous situation if we stick with the status quo.
Consider this: I was among those who thought GW Bush was nuts when he asked for $700,000,000 USD from us taxpayers to sponge up toxic assets from insolvent banks. For all of the man's faults as a president (he had many), I think that his actions last October were the boldest and most presidential moves of his or perhaps any president's career--whether or not he proposed the best course of action. In the words of VP John Biden, in hindsight I don't doubt Bush's motives on that call, although as a fiscal conservative I had big big problems with it in principle.
So your challenge, as a soon-to-be enlightened fiscal conservative republican type, is to go research what the projected health care costs as a percent of the US GDP will be in ten years and ask yourself if something needs to be done. (You are allowed to find projections that were made during the Bush presidency if it makes you feel better--you'll get the same answer.)
Just as TARP was better than sitting around waiting for economic collapse, you might find that health care/insurance reform is not such a misguided idea when you see for yourself what otherwise awaits us on the horizon.
Just callin' it like I see it.
Erratum: $700,000,000,000 USD
Just callin' it like I see it.
"We also have a relatively large fraction of our male population working in mining, fishing, logging and farming, " might have higher accidental death rates but it sounds great for fitness, a far more important item for average life span. I have not noticed fat Canadians the way I see fat Americans. ie. how many 100 kg Canadians at college age or 150 kg, 200 kg, 250+ kg adults do you see.
If we cut our sugar and starch intake by 1/2 to 2/3, eat even cheap colored veggies like cabbage, and take a *modern* multivitamin (e.g. with 2000 iu D3 + 2x RDA on vitamin Bs + C, low iron for most), we probably would pick up a few years of lifetime and hundreds of billions of dollars savings.
So, when you drive, do you build your own road? If someone burgles you, do you conduct your own investigation? It's not an affront to your pride to accept Government run healthcare, any more than it is to use Government-run libraries, schools, etc.
Freedom of speech, as the right to live, are negative rights. This means no one is allowed to interfere with you in such a way that you can't express yourself or that you die. The law is there to punish such actions. OTOH, no one has to do anything to help you talk or live.
The right to education, health, etc. are positive rights. That means somebody has to give them to you. "Somebody" being the state. Because nothing is free, the state gives it to you but in turn it takes a part of your money. If you earn below the mean, part of what it gives to you will be taken from someone else's money. Sometimes these rights cannot be enforced at their fullest because the state would have to take a huge lot from everyone and become unpopular.
You DO realize that poor folks die because of their diet, which is often all they can afford, yes? And folks 'fall through the cracks' pretty much every damned day. Next week I'll be burying my sisters ashes. You know what the cause was? lack of copper. Yep, she got butchered by a lousy surgeon and couldn't absorb copper naturally anymore. because my state has a 250K malpractice cap, nobody would take her case. And because Medicaid says copper isn't necessary they wouldn't pay for it, and at more than $1600 a month for the copper and vitamin infusions even with me helping we simply couldn't afford it. She was 36 BTW, with two teenage boys in case you were wondering.
So i doubt very seriously you have been poor or seen what it was like to be caught under the wheels of the American medical situation. I have buried 2 friends so far for things that would have been preventable if they could afford a doctor or decent food, and like I said I bury my sister next week. Here in the rural south folks are often only able to afford the cheapest (read fattiest)cuts of meat and bulk like potatoes. Also after working 12 hours in a shitty dead end job they are too tired to fix more than just the most basic of meals.
And frankly with the flood of illegals taking the "strong back" jobs that the uneducated poor used to take like construction, and more and more of our educated jobs being sent overseas or given to H1-Bs, I honestly don't see how you expect the average Joe to pay for health care short of a government run plan. Or do you honestly think they can afford quality health care while working at Wendy's?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Obesity is huge down here.
Obesity is always huge.
Of course, the government option will have to be as good as any private insurance, right? ... It will have to cheaper than private insurance. The whole point is universal coverage. That means the poor should be able to afford it as well. The only way the poor will be able to afford it is if it's cheap. So now you have a competitor to the private sector that is just as good or better than the private sector, at half the cost. It is financed by the American taxpayer so it can profit is not a concern. For that matter, it doesn't have to break even. It can lose billions of dollars every single year and it does not matter.
Now tell me. How long do you think it will take before every private health insurance company is out of business?
A couple of points:
1) The most important one first: even if we do end up with a true single payer system, comparisons with NHS still aren't apt. There are important distinctions between even a true nationalized health insurance system and a nationalized health care industry which make the concerns described in the quote from your linked article unlikely.
2) It's likely that the discounted coverage for the poor won't be the price that's available to everyone. The private sector won't have to compete across the income scale on an uneven playing field, it will simply be an uncompetitive option in a market segment it already has demonstrated it doesn't know how to provide service to.
3) However vast the public budget is, it's a limited pie and even the largest state institutions have finite pieces. Competition for investment is different, but it exists. Nor do all state entities run at a loss. The U.S. postal service (despite laws that state it should strive to be revenue neutral) runs at a profit that's reached into 10 figures over the last decade.
Still, it's true that some programs seem to be given accounting-defying resources. If this is a basic concern, it'd seem that it might be as easily addressed by crafting policy with appropriate limits on the program's resources as a simple taboo on state operation in a given sector.
4) While it's possible that some private insurers will fold if they're confronted with sizeable state competition, I also have a measure of faith that the private sector sometimes really does unleash creative energy on a problem when faced with a real challenge. It's possible insurers might step it up a notch and learn to provide more cost effective service rather than continuing a general trajectory of borderline collusive gamesmanship and rent-seeking. And if it's true they can't outdo the proverbial government bureaucrats when it comes time to, it doesn't much help the case that we should have our insurance needs met privately.
If an insurance company screws over enough of its customers, word gets out and it loses its customers and goes out of business. It has to keep a vast majority of its customers happy or they'll become the competition's customers.
That's how markets operate in ideal circumstances. That doesn't mean all markets behave that way. Insurance is one of these markets for a wide variety of reasons. It's never as simple for a customer to go to the competition in the insurance world -- even if you're in the rare position of owning an individual policy or controlling the policy selection of a group, by the nature of the business, once you need the service, it make business sense for insurers to be reluctant to provide it to you. You can't simply sign up for another insurer to take care of the chronic illness you've discovered if you're unhappy with the service of the current one.
And reputation is a limited check at best. The huge degree of information asymmetry between businesses and consumers might be enough alone to introduce problems with any ad hoc reputation system -- and this isn't just theoretical, as an example, the aforementioned MEGA Life & Health company apparently still has enough customers to shrug off a recent $20 million dollar fine.
With
Tweet, tweet.
I don't know why you would think that Europe won't intervene.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4420446/Premature-births-cost-the-NHS-almost-1-billion-a-year.html
80000 premature births in the UK
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/prematurebabies.html
480000 premature births in the US.
Adjusted for population they look very similar to me.
The fact is that the NHS will treat every and all premature birth. It will also treat every and all pregnant mothers (unless you elect to pay to go privately) If there is skewing of the statistics due to infant mortality I'd think it was the other way with babies not being taken to hospital in the US until it is too late.
Tim.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
Greetings and Salutations.
After skimming 800 bitches, moans, complaints, ad hominum attacks and one invocation of Godwin's Law, I want to ask This:
Since pretty much everyone agrees (to some extent) that the health care system in America is broken...WHat can we do to fix it?
it is easy to complain and snipe about the situation, but, that is what has gotten America into this position. What we citizens need to do is find a way to FIX the problem, and implement it.
I have my own ideas, but, would be more interested in seeing if anyone else out there is willing to pick up the challenge.
Regards
dave mundt
YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
Actually you should read up on glucose metabolism. Your body does not make glucose EVER except from the carbohydrates you eat. There is no other magical way you get glucose. If you aren't ingesting carbs then your body will switch over to ketosis after stored glycogen(glucose+water)which is using fatty acids for energy. Your body will break down your own fat or use fat from your diet and use that to fuel your brain. It's not the preferred energy source for your brain but it will work. I'm not saying it's a cure for cancer but you should at least come with an accurate argument.
Except, of course, today you get to choose which insurance company covers you.
So they have to be nice, or face a customer exodus. Obama's plan does not have to be nice, and if all past plans are any indication, they won't be.
Now if anything about economics is right, that means that demand as 0$ is damn near close to infinite.
So can you please explain where Obama, who will not refuse any treatment according to you, will get those infinite resources.
If he can't get infinite resources, please tell me which treatments will be refused and why ... since clearly you have a better source, else you wouldn't make this claim, right ?
Spoken like an ignorant peasant.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Even if you believe in a creator granting it, and you believe that this creator will punish people who deny such rights, it's still not a part of the universe's rules. Since religion is an entirely human construct, and the rules that go with religion are relevant only to humanity, all consequences of the acknowledgment of free speech are strictly contained within the bounds of human experience.
In other words, the rules of the universe shape the universe's behavior and evolution. Human free speech existing or not has nothing to do with how the universe functions, so it's not a rule of the universe. Gravity will continue to function the same either way, as will light, thermodynamics, etc.
It's an entirely human concept, and some people believe that, like free speech, people have a right to live and that in a just society we should be using our resources to uphold that right just as we expend resources upholding our right to free speech. It's an arguable point, but I don't think it's arguable that either of those things exists as an inherent rule of nature.
yes, you need to help support your society, your community, and if you don't then we have every right to insist you pay your fair share
most people understand this concept implicitly. but if you need goons with guns before you pay your fair share, then i'm all for it
why do you think you deserve to contribute less than everyone else?
do you enjoy your roads? your infrastructure? or did god make it?
you think you are an island? that your cash in your bank is some magic stuff that exists independently of your society?
fact: it is CHEAPER for all of us, for YOU to pay your fair share of health insurance for your society. if we don't do that, then society decays in such a way that this effects the overall richness of society, and therefore the amount of cash you have in the bank
that you are too ignorant to understand this doesn't mean you get a pass
if you are too stupid to understand this simple fact, and all you understand is goons with guns, then i'm all for those goons to come have a knock at your door
you aren't fighting tyranny, you aren't fighting fascism
you're fighting the SIMPLE COMMON GOOD. oh noes! my taxes might go up 5%! its the communist apocaplyse!
fucking moron
no, i'm sorry, we can't agree to disagree. that would require some sort of mutual respect. and i don't respect you, because you're IGNORANT
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you go visit a hospital. you go visit their billing department. you figure out why hospitals are always on the verge of bankruptcy
people don't pay their bills. because they aren't $50 under current hmos, moron, they are $1000 before the insurance company pays a dime
its called a DEDUCTIBLE
this is ON TOP OF THE monthly gouge out of their paycheck
the majority of people are living paycheck to paycheck. you think they can afford a sudden $750 charge for getting a broken arm? do we not fix their arm?
so force the hmos to have no deductible? ok, boom: now that monthly swipe from your paycheck doubles
or just pay a LITTLE HIGHER TAXES, which would be CHEAPER than what hmos gouge from your paycheck, and let single payer without the shitstorm of paperwork between hmos and doctors and hospitals wasting all that cash flow
my god, you are genuinely ignorant
you imagine the situation in simple pat ways that do NOT resmeble reality
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Of course, the government option will have to be as good as any private insurance, right? Otherwise why have it?
Because a whole lot of working class people DON'T have it.
Next, it will have to cheaper than private insurance. The whole point is universal coverage. That means the poor should be able to afford it as well.
The current system gives no health care to the poor at all until it's too late. Then they're admitted to the emergency room, where thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on them despite the fact that they're past helping. The indigent actually have insurance; it's called "Medicaid". It's the upper lower class and the middle class who can't afford insurance and who can't get medical care until it's both too late and incredibly expensive.
I'd point to my late friend Linda, but she's not a good example. She stayed away from the doctor out of fear; had she seen a doctor I don't know if she could have been saved ot not, but she would have suffered a lot less. But in her case it wasn't the system's fault.
I now know you can die of cowardace. But may who who could be saved and WOULD seek medical treatment can't. You're paying for this, as the hospital eats the cost of treatment for those without insurance as part of their operating expenses. You insurance company is paying for people who they're not insuring, and that cost is passed on to you in the form of your insurance premiums.
That's why the US dosn't have the highest life expectancy, and why it has the highest cost per capita. There is no more wasteful system on earth.
Well, tax the rich, of course
See above. You're already paying a tax, only the government doesn't collect it, your insurance company does.
So now you have a competitor to the private sector that is just as good or better than the private sector, at half the cost.
The insurance companies' costs go down, because they're no longer paying for patients who aren't insured.
It is financed by the American taxpayer so it can profit is not a concern.
That also cuts costs -- the middleman is gone.
Oh, and it can make it's own rules because it has the backing of the United States Congress
The insurance companies make the rules now. Congress is accountable to YOU, the insurance companies are only accountable to their stockholders.
How long do you think it will take before every private health insurance company is out of business?
Not soon enough, in my opinion. They're nothing more than parasites.
If an insurance company screws over enough of its customers, word gets out and it loses its customers and goes out of business.
Nope, because most of its customers don't have a choice -- you're insured by whatever company your employer decides on.
I agree with the rest of your post.
Free Martian Whores!
If you really did just pay your own way for everything you'd get absolutely nowhere and be living in a cave rubbing two sticks together to make a fire. The whole point about society is that everyone depends to some extent on everyone else.
Maybe you have a car, or a truck that you have been lucky enough to afford to buy. The reason you could afford to buy it is because hundreds of thousands of other people have bought the same truck allowing the manufacturers to bring the price down to something you could afford. To live truly according to your purported principles you'd eschew this sort of communist system and contract someone to build you a truck entirely from scratch relying on nothing developed by anyone else. Good luck affording to buy that truck !
As a native Texan, I agree with everything you said here, except ...
Spending an hour and a half peeling 50 crawfish has got to be considered exercise. Plus the entire boil consists of seafood and vegetables. In fact, if everyone down South had a crawfish boil twice a week instead of eating how they do, we'd probably all be skinnier.
Excuse me while I deep fry this Luther burger.
I'd like to express my condolences to you and your family and especially to your two nephews!
I hope that someday tragedies like this can be prevented.
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than have to have a frontal lobotomy."
Nor do all state entities run at a loss. The U.S. postal service (despite laws that state it should strive to be revenue neutral) runs at a profit that's reached into 10 figures over the last decade
Another even better example is CWLP, the power company in Springfield, IL. It's run by the city and turns a profit despite the fact that we have the cheapest and most dependable electricity in Illinois.
Free Martian Whores!
But that's what insurance is.
Yes and no. With medical insurance, you and the insurer knows that about 90% of your total cost to the insurance company will be at the end of your life. Fire and auto and even life insurance don't know this. Nor do you. Its more random.
Life insurance when you are young is cheap, because odds are you are not going to die. Health insurance is not cheap, and you don't need it until you are older. Its more cost effective to pay out of pocket when you are younger vs having insurance.
Actually you should read up on glucose metabolism. Your body does not make glucose EVER except from the carbohydrates you eat. There is no other magical way you get glucose.
It's not magic, just chemistry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
Your body will break down your own fat or use fat from your diet and use that to fuel your brain. It's not the preferred energy source for your brain but it will work.
Your body _will_ make glucose from other substrates, because it's the energy source that the brain needs. Also, your red blood cells _cannot_ use anything but glucose for their energy needs. Blood glucose levels need to be kept in the right range, or you'll die - regardless of the availability of other energy sources.
Seriously.
You've made an obvious and easily correctable mistake. You've confused the "current system" with the "proposed system". You see right now your health care is dependent on how valuable you are (or were) to the private sector (with exceptions for the Military, and the retired).
If you aren't valuable enough to the company you work for, you get no health care.
Of course, your statement that infants and the elderly would not get health is pure fantasy. In the real world, most people recognize that retired people are rabid voters. No politician wants to piss off the people who vote at the highest rate in the country. After retired people, the next most active group is parents.
So why are people saying they won't get coverage if it makes no sense that they wouldn't? Because the people saying it want to scare the fucking pants off of people. As far as I can see there's two or three reasons for this:
1) They have profits to protect. The insurance industry is all about profiting by denying people health care, it's their own self-avowed "growth strategy".
2) They are politically opposed to the democrats, Fox News and the Republicans don't give a damn about 50 million Americans who primarily vote for the Democrats and thus defeating health care reform is win-win for them. It's more likely to sway unaffiliated voters towards their party and kill the people who don't vote for them anyway.
3) They are ideologically opposed to government. They believe that government is by definition incompetent and that only the private sector can do anything good ever.
There's some overlap between 2 and 3, but frankly when you hear people spouting crazy stuff you need to stop and check whether they're lying to you. Because there's a long, long history of people lying for money, power, and influence.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
against low iq morons in the usa attempting to participate in a debate over healthcare in this country informed with nothing but propaganda and lies and low iq, and not a shred of understand WHAT IT IS REALLY FUCKING ABOUT
fact, solid fucking FACT: universal healthcare is SUPERIOR to what we currently have in this country, most definitely and importantly including IT SAVES YOU MONEY
as if the bite hmos take out of your paycheck isn't a tax that would actually go DOWN in a single payer system
and what do these ignorant retards rant about? it has nothing to DO with healthcare. it has to do with their irrelevance and their ignorance, and all they can do to try to matter is yell their ignorance at the top of their lungs
all i want is for some propagandized morons in this country to actually fucking understand what SOCIALISM actually is, philosophically, and how it is BETTER than the bullshit system we currently live under, before they open their ignorant low iq propagandized mouths
what the hell is socialism? its MEDICARE. its MEDICAID. HOW THE HELL DOES THAT THREATEN ANYONE YOU IGNORANT RETARDS
goons? goons with guns are going to force you to pay? WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND WHY IT I IN YOUR BEST INTEREST O PYA, THAT IT MAKES YOU RICHER BECAUSE YOUR SOCIETY IS RICHER FOR SUPPORTING BASIC FUCKING INFRASTRUCTURE YOU FUCKING MORON
oh noes! its a secret communist muslim conspiracy to destory all that america values!
fucking morons
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If everyone loses money on Medicare, why do doctors accept the patients? It's not mandatory, and if they were actually losing money the patients would be dropped.
There is no free lunch, however, often by ordering in bulk you can get a significant discount. Which is pretty much the secret to government provided health care in many countries.
You see, if the government is buying health care for everyone in the country, they're buying a lot of health care. The more they're buying the more competitive the bids will be to provide that health care. There's a couple reasons for that, one is that landing those big government contracts bring in a lot of money and a lot of clients, and the other is that if you're billing one group for health care, you don't need to have a special billing staff to check over every one of 235 different health forms to make sure that your procedures can't be denied because of cosmetic errors on the paperwork. I've heard from several different sources that about 30% of American health care expenditures go to covering the cost of billing to insurance companies.
According to the estimate based on the latest draft the total cost to American tax payers for universal health care is going to be about $30 billion dollars. Contrast that with the $700 billion dollars that Bush distributed to Wall Street and couldn't be bothered to track where the money went or what people did with it. Contrast it with the money spent on a pointless war in Iraq.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
If everyone loses money on Medicare, why do doctors accept the patients?
Medicaid. Similar name, different system.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Absolutely. It's really just a matter of picking a set of starting assumptions that everybody is comfortable with.
The data is a good deal more complicated than you or the article suggest. In particular the US has substantially better neonatal and premature birth care. Those babies are much more likely to die outright in the RoW and those deaths are excluded from the statistics. Conversely, those 'saved' babies in US have lower than average life expectancies and weigh-down the numbers.
This is an area where 'science' and 'facts' have been highly politicized--a war on science so to speak--to advance a political agenda. Witness your own pivot into a lack of 'health-care'.
If you have populations who forgo abortion despite adverse fetal genetic testing, you're also going to have populations with lower life expectancies too.
Of course, the government option will have to be as good as any private insurance, right? Otherwise why have it?
Because a whole lot of working class people DON'T have it.
A public option doesn't guarantee this people WILL have it. We don't know the real reasons behind why these people don't have it. If it's affordability, I'm willing to bet there are plenty that CAN afford it, but their priorities are f****d up.
I now know you can die of cowardace. But may who who could be saved and WOULD seek medical treatment can't. You're paying for this, as the hospital eats the cost of treatment for those without insurance as part of their operating expenses. You insurance company is paying for people who they're not insuring, and that cost is passed on to you in the form of your insurance premiums.
That's why the US dosn't have the highest life expectancy, and why it has the highest cost per capita. There is no more wasteful system on earth.
This drives me wild. There are more reasons for longevity not related to whether or not a few people do or don't have insurance. The USA doesn't have the highest life expectancy because we're all a bunch of lard asses, or have more other unhealthy habits compared to other countries. We also don't know the effects of living in some different areas yet. It does make a difference. The leading cause of death in the USA is heart disease. No system in the world can help your fat ass out except doing insane amounts of bypasses, but even then you're still a ticking time bomb.
Well, tax the rich, of course
See above. You're already paying a tax, only the government doesn't collect it, your insurance company does.
Yes, but then we'll have a tax AND we'll be paying in. Sounds expensive to me.
So now you have a competitor to the private sector that is just as good or better than the private sector, at half the cost.
The insurance companies' costs go down, because they're no longer paying for patients who aren't insured.
It is financed by the American taxpayer so it can profit is not a concern.
That also cuts costs -- the middleman is gone.
Yes, but now instead of businessmen handling business, you got a bunch of politicians who are notorious for overspending, wasting money, and being incredibly poor managers of any system.
If an insurance company screws over enough of its customers, word gets out and it loses its customers and goes out of business.
Nope, because most of its customers don't have a choice -- you're insured by whatever company your employer decides on.
Agreed. But I don't believe that a public option is the answer to everything. What employer in their right mind would be willing to pay a tax for the public option whether you take it or not and continue to pay the majority of the costs of the non-public plan? It'd all cost too much and they would just leave you the public "option", leaving no choices, and we're back to square one.
For the rest of the reform, I also believe there should be more protections for customers, and information should be legally required to be VERY available, and VERY clear. They shouldn't be able to drop you because you actually used the insurance, and you should be able to get some form of coverage with most pre-existing conditions, or at least transfer coverage from one place to the next.
I'd also like to point out that the public option does nothing for the quality of health care. All this bill is mandating is who you are paying for insurance. I'd venture to guess the most of the same problems will still be here even with Obamacare.
Taxing the "rich" constantly to solve our budget problems is not the answer.
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
Speaking of research, Trig is a boy. And really classy move there, mocking the disabled.
What I meant was that in the popular media, the term "death panels" has gained traction. While it may be used in the context of trying to debunk its assertion, in the long run, the widespread use of the term undermined the political momentum of the proponents of the Obama/Dem plan. So much so that they promptly removed the provision that didn't exist.
She is no dummy; that was a brilliant little bit of political guerilla fighting.
BTW, did you click the link to the Atlantic article? That article is really good, and proposes a real fix to the health care system. It should be seriously considered.
So what you're saying is that the GOVERNMENT RUN MEDICAID program wouldn't pay for her treatment, and that the only answer to that is a GOVERNMENT RUN PLAN?
Sorry about your sister, but think about what you're saying.
Hmm...sounds like you need a bit more practice. I can down 2-3lbs of them in less than 5min.
And I'm not even a 'native' of Louisiana.
I had people show me how to do it fast...'cause down here, if you don't eat them fast, you go hungry.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
A stent saved me, I had a heart attack in July, on a Saturday evening. The stent was fitted Sunday morning.
They are actually remarkably simple to fit, inserted via an artery in my groin its not even counted as an operation. The whole procedure took around an hour. Theres a vast difference between my energy levels before and immediately after.
I'd say like most people I didn't really understand about heart attacks or how my life style contributed.
Essentially its down to clots blocking your coronary arteries the lack of flow of oxygenated blood to the heart muscle causes the heart muscle to start to die after 20-30 minutes the dead muscle is replaced by scar tissue which doesn't help with pumping blood. The damage eventually causes your heart to be unable to pump blood then you die.
Smoking is bad for you since it narrows the arteries meaning smaller clots can kill you high cholesterol promotes the fatty deposits which cause narrowing of the arteries excess weight makes your heart work harder which makes it more likely for the artery to tear create a bleed and then a clot.
The biggest problem is the amount of saturated fat we have in our diet and unfortunately most of the food available will contribute to death by heart disease. All the processed gunk the supermarkets sell the reconstituted meat with dyed fat we really shouldn't be eating this.
Funny thing is you are usually around retirement age before the consequences of poor diet and lifestyle catch up with most of us, You would almost think its intentional. Eating better, taking some exercise not smoking thats pretty much all thats needed but because we are not aware of the state we are in we don't tackle these issues.
As I was going to hospital the one thing i was sure of was I wasn't ready to die yet.
I've been lucky I live in a country where health care is provided when its needed there is private sector health care but the insurance companies are restricted in how much they can charge. Even without medical insurance you can pay limited charges but below a certain income even those are waived.
The real shame of the USA is that it fails its citizens when it comes to health care.
The only justification is the cost and these days you don't even save that.
Final thought even though the stent has saved my life, I could have avoided it by choosing healthy low fat foods Generally if its not as it was raised on the farm it has generally been altered to make it cheaper easier to consume and generally with the addition of crap that is bad with your health.
Smoking is a real bitch, my last cigarette I was having a coronary, Niquitin cq clear patches actually work, they stink but they do work. The other leading brand did not help me. A phased withdrawl seems to be effective sometimes i want a cigarette but i find a fresh patch works. There is a mild side effect the patch gives me an itch where its applied, which tells me its working.
The surgeon who gave me my stent did say if I didn't stop smoking I had months. That helps also my framed ECG and ultrasound of my heart gives me some more will power.
Nothing like the prospect of death in the near future to aid concentration. Simple truth is by ignoring my bad choices I've reduced my life expectancy and most people reading this are doing the same thing. 30% of people who have a heart attack die immediately 21% within a year of it. I've just got through month 1 where i'm 10x more likely to die than in 2 years after.
Thats why i'm sayin sort your life out now don't wait for the heart attack.
One more thing 300mg of asprin chewed when having a heart attack may break down the clot saving you the damage caused before you can get treated.
75mg of asprin daily reduces the formation of clots and doesn't cost much, if your high risk then this is something to consider.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Anecdotally, when I lived in London my future wife's flatmate had a sick grandmother that they flew out of country to get treatment because the last time she had the same sort of problem, she nearly died while waiting.
Yeah, riiight.
Because NHS queues for treatment for serious illnesses are *that* long, and cheap and good-quality private healthcare isn't available in London.
When did being educated and being able to think and reason for yourself become elitist?
I never saw people get so hot under the collar when you mentioned you got a little bombed the other night and had to be careful driving home....until I started talking to people from up north. Down here, not as much a stigma.
Bombed + Driving = Bad Form anywhere.
Not by perception. I can say in Montana it's not much of a Big Deal. Sounds quite similar to where the GP is from.
Bullish Machine Tzar
Citation please for Govenor Palin being kicked out of office for ethics violations? Please list the exact ethics violations and their conviction? Oh, you can't? Ok. STFU then.
I ... have no clue exactly what problem the Democrats are trying to solve.
The problem the Democrats are trying to solve IS how to insure everyone without drowning the country in debt or destroying the parts of the system that work.
Along the way, they have been quick to make changes and compromises (as of this writing, the end-of-life counseling originally proposed by the Bush administration and the "public option" so feared by the Health Insurance companies have been dropped). One reason for the flexibility is that the concerns raised by the Republicans and the "Blue dog" democrats about both financial viability and government intrusions have been acknowledged by the administration as legitimate.
A problem has been that no solution yet on the table seems to have enough votes to pass. The right wing fears that a system that successfully serves more than 250 million people may be wounded. The left wing fears being thrown out of power if the more than 50 million uninsured people are still uninsured when the next election happens.
An income tax surcharge that funds vouchers that private citizens could use to purchase private health insurance might work for everyone. (I think Australia has a similar approach.) That would remove employers from involvement in employee personal situations just as employers in this country are not involved in their employees' purchase of mortgages and car insurance. That would also create a larger market for private insurers to compete over.
Live Long and Prosper - Thanks Leonard. You are missed.
Not if you build back on the same lot, they won't.
And really classy move there, mocking the disabled.
Playing the hurt feelings card? Mkay. You win. All you libs are the same.
Just callin' it like I see it.
One of the people from the MSN article:
"Suzanne Mullins won $4.2 million in the Virginia lottery in 1993. Now she's deeply in debt to a company that lent her money using the winnings as collateral.
She borrowed $197,746.15, which she agreed to pay back with her yearly checks from the Virginia lottery through 2006. When the rules changed allowing her to collect her winnings in a lump sum, she cashed in the remaining amount. But she stopped making payments on the loan.
She blamed the debt on the lengthy illness of her uninsured son-in-law, who needed $1 million for medical bills. "
We live in a country where, even if you hit the lotto, you can still end up bankrupt from medical bills. Maybe single-payer healthcare doesn't just help the poor while robbing from the rich after all......
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
I hate it when simpson's paradox is ignored...
Just for instance, check the relative demographics of the US and UK and then examine the life expectency broken down by race and sex in the US (about page 141 in the file). Combining the 2 and looking only at males, we get a life expectency of 74.8 in the US. Compare the english and scotch combined in the UK (the population percentages add up to more than a 100, but this is just an illustrative example rather than definitively good statistics), of roughly 92%. Using the same life expectancy by racial group, the UK would have a male life expectancy of 75.6. I would love to find a source to compare the life expectancy in the UK broken down by ethnicity and sex for a more direct comparison. It's possible for the life expectancy of each racial group to be better in the US but nonetheless worse overall.
On a related note, if someone wants to look at infant mortality, I reccomend perinatal mortality instead. It partially avoids the issues about defining a live birth, which not all countries do the same way. As an example, the US has a better perinatal mortality rate than the UK, although our infant mortality is worse.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Actually, it's pefectly possible to pay your own way for things and still live in a house instead of a cave, with heat, etc. It's called voluntary trade. Trade can make both participants better off. That doesn't make it right to engage in confiscation. Confiscation and trade are different things.
However, the GP post claimed only to be against any dependence on other people, so I can't fault your complaint about his principles. I only take issue with your first statement.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
And you can.
You likely have to pay more since I would suspect there's a greater chance of you being a careless pyromaniac than the average person.
Just like with health insurance a pre-existing condition doesn't stop you getting insurance it just won't cover that condition (since unlike a house fire once you have cancer or aids or a dodgy heart you are stuck with it). Your rates will likely be higher since sick people tend to be more susceptible to getting other things than the average person.
And of course some conditions are serious enough that you couldn't afford the insurance they could offer anyway so they'll just reject you. That sucks, but that's why you take out insurance when you are healthy.
The fatal flaw with this in the US is the idiocies of tieing health insurance to employment and allowing insurance companies to back out when it is time to pay out because they didn't bother doing the due diligence at the beginning (and why is not refunding your premiums is not fraud).
I'm saying that there is no mutherfucking reason why simple copper and vitamins in a saline solution, without even requiring a nurse or doctor to give it (my sis had a port and my mom is a nurse) should cost $1600+ fucking dollars, that is what I am saying!
Your "free market" shit don't work in medicine, just as it don't work in teleco. It don't work because a few companies have gotten "too big to fail" and the whole thing has devolved into a "fuck them harder than they are fucking me" between the drug manufacturers and the insurance companies with the working poor getting fucked by all.
And isn't it funny how so much of the civilized world can actually afford health care for all, while the USA, a supposed 'superpower" has so many of its people living like a third world country, with more ending up down every day? Maybe if we didn't have bloodsucking leeches and legal bribery....err I mean lobbying by major insurance companies and drug manufacturers we wouldn't be in this mess. And the truly sad part is so many of those that are now listed as disabled could actually work if they could afford their medication. I have a relative right now who is extremely bright and could work instead of being stuck at home on disability, but the medication that keeps him from being crippled costs $89000! and he will lose it if he goes to work, since all the education in the world won't give him a starting pay that will allow him to feed himself and pay for his medication.
So PLEASE for my sister, my cousin, and all those that are currently being buttraped by the medical system, quit believing the crap you see on Faux Spews. Sure if you are rich the system works, but the gutting of the middle class is quickly turning this country into another Brazil, where the poor live in wretched squalor while the rich enjoy their new Hummer. Sadly this country is fulfilling the punch line from the late George Carlin's joke all too often now- "You know why they call it the American Dream? Because you have to be asleep to believe in it".
As for the one who expressed his sympathies, thank you. The worst part is their dad got hooked on drugs when they were little (which is why I call them "my boys", because I had to fill the father role almost since birth) and now that he has gotten clean and sober they most likely won't get a chance to really know him as he has hepatitis C and if he doesn't get approved for disability soon he will die because he simply can't afford to live. He of course can no longer hold a job since the hep C has made him so bloated he looks like a corpse that has been left in the sun, and the constant puking isn't something most companies will want around.
So in all likelihood the boys will lose both parents sooner than they need to because they simply can't afford to survive in our current situation. It is bad enough now that my late sister's doctor says they even have a name for it -"CATL" which stands for "Can't afford to live", which he says he sees all to often as folks can't afford anything but ER care, which is often too little too late. How fucking sad that in this country we should even have an acronym like that.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
If you only knew...
This is it really. This combined w/ the rolling of costs for providing underinsured care into the cost of providing insured care. I've seen the #'s behind healthcare. I'm really afraid for our future. It's time we start educating ourselves again. Eat right, exercise, and stay away from risky activities. (1 out of 3 is a rare occurence in this country).
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
How would you feel if you were drowning in the lake and there was a line to use the flotation device? See France, UK and Canadian solutions.
How would you feel if you were drowning in the lake and the government didn't toss you a flotation device you payed for because they gave it to somebody else instead? Read the current draft bill.
How would you feel if you were standing on the side of the lake, saw somebody in trouble, but when you went to save them a government panel intervened and prevented you from getting in the water, because the only approved treatments are 1). boat rescue or 2). certified swimmer? Read the current draft bill.
How would you feel if your parents or kids were drowning and the government told the people on the side on to not go and save them, because they were to remain ready to save people between the ages of 15-50 and not to bother with the young or the old. Read the current draft bill.
How would you feel if you being a great swimmer were comfortable taking a chance in the lake, but the government required you either pay for a private life guard, rent the government life guard or pay a tax equal to 2.5% of your salary (unless you are "an illegal resident", cannot make this up, it is in the bill). And then after 5 years your employer will have to pay a 8% fine if you use a private life guard instead of a government life guard. Read the current draft bill.
Respect the Constitution
How would you feel if you were drowning in a lake and the flotation device came with a credit card slot?
Would you prefer to have no option and simply die or the option pay and be saved?
You seem to advocate the position to pay indirectly (i.e. via high taxes or somebody else's wallet).
Understand that any government that can save your life, can take it away.
In short you prefer to surrender your rights for security (which, will leave you with neither). I prefer to have liberty and be responsible for myself and my family.
Why must you take our people's hard earned money? Why don't you pay for your BS and leave me alone?
National health care is unconstitutional so it cannot be done without an amendment, because the 10th amendment leaves this right to the states. So a state like MA can socialize health care and states like TX may not.
The beauty of the Constitutional framework is that you can live in a state that supports your values (a nanny state), while I can live in a state the supports mine (limited government with low taxes).
Respect the Constitution
Well every liberal thinks he's unique and everyone else is a machine, unthinking, polluting, racist and uncaring.
That's why they're so very opposed to reality. You see in reality they are ... machines, unthinking, polluting, racist and uncaring.
Gotcha! Thanks for makin' my point.
Just callin' it like I see it.
Maybe Ben Stiller will step in and open up the: Derek Zoolander Center For People Who Can't Healthy Good And Wanna Heal And Get Medicine Stuff Good Too Just sayin'
I don't have any choice in which insurance company covers me. My employer offers me 2 choices from the same company with very little difference between the two. Buying insurance on the open market is not possible for me because of a preexisting condition. But I will be eligible for Medicare in 8 years. Hope I can keep my job until then. If I could I would direct the money my employer spends on my insurance to Medicare and buy into it.
The same could be done with the removal of the cross state restrictions on current healthcare and you wouldn't require government takeover for that.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
I said it was anecdotal. I've no real idea of the depth of the issue. Monique was hardly best pals with me or my significant other.
I was just pointing out that my second hand relation of NHS was hardly peaches and cream.
Sometimes having a Doctor wave some lab reports in front of your face and saying your gonna die soon is enough to galvanize someone into taking care of themselves.
I have a friend here in Canada who at 40 went for a checkup, got told he was a prime candidate for a heart attack any day. He changed his diet, slowed down on the work and started exercising. Next Doctor visit is more positive (nice to have feedback that your doing right). He's over 50 now and doing fine.
Sometimes we need reminding of our mortally so we do take care of ourselves.
In America, we like to get those reminders from self-righteous assholes who think 45 million Americans don't deserve basic healthcare.
Also, we really, really like making money off of selling Cheetos to the poor.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
It's not a guaranteed cure. It's something that *might* help.
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
If you have cancer it's probably better to actually generate only the glucose you need, as opposed to most of the calories you eat ...
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
Cancers are usually very good at feeding themselves. They'll get whatever nutrients they need as long the rest of the body is still alive. If you try to "starve" the cancer of glucose, what's going to happen is that it won't bother the cancer much, but your body (which is already busy trying to fight the cancer) gets deprived of an important nutrient and has to spend extra resources manufacturing it - and that still may not be enough since the cancer is mooching off the limited manufacturing capacity.
In short: You're going to hurt your body a lot more than you're going to hurt the cancer. Effective cancer treatments work the other way round (surgery/chemotherapy/radiation therapy/etc).
No, it's a pretty sure way to make things worse.
It's something that *might* help.
It's much more likely to hurt than help.
*Most* of your body doesn't need to run on glucose, it can run just fine on ketones/fatty acids. A lot of cancers need glucose, so if you reduce glucose, that's another hurdle for it to cross.
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
Exactly. And a cell turning cancerous doesn't suddenly change its metabolism completely. It will still use the citric acid cycle just like any other cell to satisfy its ATP needs using whatever substrate is available.
Saying you can starve cancer of glucose with a carbohydrate-free diet is kind of like saying you can starve it of oxygen by holding your breath. It's not going to work, and you'll do more damage to your body than to the cancer in the process.
A lot of cancers need glucose,
Some _parts_ of a cancerous tumor may, under a certain condition. That's a couple of big question marks there, and still doesn't mean that you're going to do more damage to your body than to the cancer.
Your body will be just fine in ketosis. I'd say I'm in ketosis about half the time, and it's not a big deal, and no I don't have cancer. Skipping meals becomes easy too.
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
And what happens in ketosis? The cells in the body use the ketone bodies (produced from fatty acids in the liver) and fatty acids as substrate for the citric acid cycle (the ketone bodies are reconverted to acetyl-CoA inside the cell first). And there's nothing stopping cancer cells from doing exactly the same thing (well, except for the condition that I haven't mentioned. Should be easy to guess, though). The interesting thing about the citric acid cycle is that it's the point where the catabolic pathways of carbohydrates, fats and protein converge. It's the multi-fuel engine of cells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketone_body
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis
You show a bit of a lack of understanding of basic cellular physiology (this is really, really basic stuff). Are you sure you're not just repeating stuff you heard from someone else without understanding it? I'm sure you can find a textbook on basic physiology in the nearest library. Until you really understand what you're talking about, please refrain from giving people advice that's quite likely to shorten their lifespan.
Cancer cells are not as flexible as normal cells, and cancers depend atleast somewhat on glucose. Ketosis does slow down the growth of cancers.
There have actually been studies on this sort of thing ...
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1662484,00.html
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
However, because cancer cells have a defective Krebs cycle, they must derive almost all of their energy needs from Glycolysis.
http://www.apjohncancerinstitute.org/physician-2.htm
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
You're testing me, right ?
The krebs cycle doesn't work in cancer cells, since if it did, the cell would have undergone apoptosis a while ago.
The problem is that most doctors don't know or won't tell you these things.
I *wish* a doctor could guide everything. Unfortunately that doesn't work, leaving scope for the amateurs ...
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill