|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Health Care
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
No, I'm sure that New Yorker was actually celebrating the culmination of our freedom in finally enacting a basic human right though democratic means that was denied us by our tyrannical British overlords... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--Tom Clune
You still think health care is a right?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
No, I'm sure that New Yorker was actually celebrating the culmination of our freedom in finally enacting a basic human right though democratic means that was denied us by our tyrannical British overlords...
--Tom Clune
You still think health care is a right?
Of course not. The notion that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights is just 21st century liberal clap-trap.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Of course not. The notion that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights is just 21st century liberal clap-trap.
But that was Thomas Jefferson, wasn't it? And he's being stripped from all the textbooks in Texas even as we speak. And with any luck we can get Montecello taken off the bus tours in D.C. next. Freak liberal among the otherwise solidly neo-conservative Christian founding fathers.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
No, I'm sure that New Yorker was actually celebrating the culmination of our freedom in finally enacting a basic human right though democratic means that was denied us by our tyrannical British overlords...
--Tom Clune
You still think health care is a right?
Why is this any different from fire departments, police departments, and schools? If anything, schools are not a matter of life or death, but health care is.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
Not if Obama wants to do it, it isn't. New Yorker is nothing if not consistent. If Bush did it, it was great. If Obama does it, it's eeeeeeeeeevil.
I agree about those damn petty thugs, though, how they're always trying to insure me in spite of my pre-existing conditions.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
No, I'm sure that New Yorker was actually celebrating the culmination of our freedom in finally enacting a basic human right though democratic means that was denied us by our tyrannical British overlords...
--Tom Clune
You still think health care is a right?
As opposed to being a privilege for those who can afford to buy it?????
I feel dragged into your health care fight since the premier of my province, Danny Williams, was mentioned on the last page and has been held up as an example by the anti-health care forces in the US, due to his having gone to the US for surgery which was in fact available in Canada.
In response to SPK, no, this did not happen because all Newfoundland premiers are crazy. It happened because all super-rich people have the privilege, as they have always had, of going anywhere in the world they want to, and can afford to go, in order to seek out the kind of health care they want. It has no bearing on the needs of ordinary people, particularly the working poor who are the people most in need of good health care. There's never been any question about whether the Danny Williamses of the world can buy the privilege of good health care. Whether good health care is available to the guy who checks out Danny's stuff at WalMart and pumps gas into his car -- that's when it becomes a question of rights. In Danny Williams' case, the "little people" who elected him to public office and who made his staggering wealth possible by their labour DO have the right to good health care, because we live in a country that has decided health care is a basic human right. We haven't developed a perfect, foolproof, flaw-free system -- I doubt any country on earth has -- but when we work to improve our system, we work to improve it for everybody, because we believe everybody has that right.
Working people in the USA should be so lucky.
[ 22. March 2010, 18:02: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
[Of course not. The notion that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights is just 21st century liberal clap-trap.
Well, the feds can't even get the first in your list right so I suppose they'll screw up the health care as well.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I heard this morning that today is the anniversary of the British parliament's passing the Stamp Act part of a series of Acts that lead, in part, to the American Revolution. ...
Is there any time within 3 days of the whole year where in an event from that outrageously violent and class filled civil war, fought often more over money and power then over rights, could not be invoked by people against one bit of politics or another?
At least we as a country have come to terms with the fact that we exist only because a bunch of Ontario and Quebec lawyers wanted to get money from railway land speculation.
To mythologise your beginnings as if the fact that an action exists from that time makes it applicable to all times is just sooo.......niave.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
[Of course not. The notion that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights is just 21st century liberal clap-trap.
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Well, the feds can't even get the first in your list right so I suppose they'll screw up the health care as well.
Not really an answer, though.
I think either one believes in rights or one doesn't. If one does, one has to accept that the whole notion is silly, illogical, and riven with inconsistencies. How can it possibly be a right that someone else provides you with something you are lacking as a result of your own mistakes, your parents mistakes, or bad luck? The notion that companies must be prevented from providing poor working conditions by the state rather than simply workers voting with their feet? It's all illogical because one can't draw the lines clearly.
Why is secondary school education a right but university not quite a right in the same way? If healthcare becomes a right does it stop with cosmetic procedures? Or just cosmetic procedures we approve of like dealing with disfiguring burns?
And, as NY observes, the government tends to fuck up running things, and what are the mechanisms for putting that right in a timely way that doesn't rely on a vote in 4yrs time? All illogical nonsense.
If one doesn't believe in rights, then one is left with a predatorial, dark society where might is right and no-one cares if you go down.
Perfectly logical and yet not somewhere any of us would want to live.
So one has to draw an illogical arbitrary circle around things that a society wants to do to create a society worth something.
Personally, I put healthcare in that circle.
By the way, I heard a great conversation captured elsewhere on the net;
quote:
This is the first step towards a socialist state controlling our health, then through that controlling what we eat, what we drive and who we are. It makes me sick to the core of my stomach.
quote:
"At least you'll now be able to afford the healthcare that the core of your stomach is going to need without going broke."
[ 22. March 2010, 19:41: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Of course not. The notion that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights is just 21st century liberal clap-trap.
But that was Thomas Jefferson, wasn't it? And he's being stripped from all the textbooks in Texas even as we speak. And with any luck we can get Montecello taken off the bus tours in D.C. next. Freak liberal among the otherwise solidly neo-conservative Christian founding fathers.
Those are damn long bus tours in D.C. if Monticello is included -- Charlottesville is rather a ways from D.C., I think you'll find. Perhaps you meant the Jefferson Memorial?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Oops. I haven't been there in a while. Please edit as applicable.
[ 22. March 2010, 19:50: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Of course, while I may not believe that health care is a right, as a Catholic I do think that there should be adequate access to health care. I just don't think the current bill does that. It's more about raising taxes and creating a larger bureaucracy than anything else.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
But, since you see EVERYTHING as a device to make you pay more taxes, you are, I guess, being consistent.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Do you suppose the anti's will avail themselves of the effects of the bill, even though they were dead set against it? Or will they sign affidavits that if their kid gets a major illness, they'll quit their insurance plan? Or if they lose coverage and then get some terrible disease, they'll refuse until they die to get help from any health insurance? Surely they'd be willing to stand behind their position?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
Most things won't change, really -- we've had "guvmint" health care for years. The few things that are going to change mostly look good, for the individual benefiting.
What I'm not looking forward to is when the IRS is enforcing the rule that says everyone has to buy health insurance, eventually fining people hundreds a year if they don;t want to but it. It's against some people's religious convictions, I wonder how that will be handled?
And I'll be watching my own insurance premiums rise, I'm sure. We'll see if the "caps" on premiums help me any.
One thing I will watch with interest is this:
Already, with the existing Medicaid program, I have to call and solicit and arm-twist to get some patients to come in for routine care, preventative care like a yearly physical or vaccinations. There's no expense to them, it's being paid for them -- and they still won't come in.
OTOH, I can't convince some parents to stop coming in so much. A perfectly healthy child with a little sinus drip or a cold does not need to miss school and show up at the clinic twice a week for months at a time. I'm supposed to be triaging on the phone, guiding and suggesting and setting appointments properly -- but because it's Medicaid I (my employer) can't deny anyone, must see them within 24 hours if they won't be swayed. For every damned hangnail, sniffle and hickey.
So, these things I will be watching for, to see how things change. If they change.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
And I'll be watching my own insurance premiums rise, I'm sure. We'll see if the "caps" on premiums help me any.
You think they're going to raise more than the 30-70% Blue Shield raised rates earlier this year?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Janine posts: quote:
but because it's Medicaid I (my employer) can't deny anyone, must see them within 24 hours if they won't be swayed. For every damned hangnail, sniffle and hickey.
But aren't hickeys a chronic condition in some circles?
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
What I'm not looking forward to is when the IRS is enforcing the rule that says everyone has to buy health insurance, eventually fining people hundreds a year if they don;t want to but it. It's against some people's religious convictions, I wonder how that will be handled?
The article I read summarizing the changes said there would be exemptions for those who religious convictions precluded them from getting insurance. That stood out to me as I thought I was one of the world experts in odd and inconvenient religious convictions (being SDA will do that to you), but even I'd never heard of people objecting to insurance. But there ya go ... I guess as soon as somebody comes up with anything, someone else finds a religious basis for objecting to it.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Does anyone actually know what's in the bill that just passed?
I'm currently uninsured. When will I need to get insurance? Being a diabetic, will I be able to afford it or will it be cheaper to cough up the fine? I heard they can't deny coverage anymore, so I'd like some major medical coverage (if that's true, which I have doubts about).
I like paying for my own medical care. You get what you pay for and all that. Will I be able to continue to do that? Can I tip the doctors so they do a good job?
What are the abortion rules? I won't pay for an abortion or otherwise aid in one, even if it means going to prison. Should I buy some striped clothes or did they take that out?
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
Some of my old, hyper-Calvinistic, Christian/Protestant/Netherlands Reformed relatives had religious objections to insurance. They felt that it was an affront to the sovereign will of God.
Strict Christian Scientists might also object. Perhaps some fringe Pentecostals also?
Greta
[ 23. March 2010, 01:39: Message edited by: CorgiGreta ]
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Some of my old, hyper-Calvinistic, Christian/Protestant/Netherlands Reformed relatives had religious objections to insurance. They felt that it was an affront to the sovereign will of God.
Strict Christian Scientists might also object. Perhaps some fringe Pentecostals also?
Technically one could say that the law is requiring you to purchase insurance, but it's certainly not going to require you to use it. No one is going to drag (adult anyway) Christian scientists into the GP's office against their will.
The real objection then would be to having to pay for something you don't intend to use. But we require childless people and home-schoolers to contribute their taxes to pay for public schools. We even require pacifists to contribute toward taxes that help support the military.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
My strict Calvinist relatives happily collected their Social Security checks (which are arguably insurance benefits) even though they considered FDR and all his programs to be Communist.
Greta
[ 23. March 2010, 01:55: Message edited by: CorgiGreta ]
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Does anyone actually know what's in the bill that just passed?
I'm currently uninsured. When will I need to get insurance? Being a diabetic, will I be able to afford it or will it be cheaper to cough up the fine? I heard they can't deny coverage anymore, so I'd like some major medical coverage (if that's true, which I have doubts about).
I like paying for my own medical care. You get what you pay for and all that. Will I be able to continue to do that? Can I tip the doctors so they do a good job?
What are the abortion rules? I won't pay for an abortion or otherwise aid in one, even if it means going to prison. Should I buy some striped clothes or did they take that out?
AIUI, the fines for not having insurance don't start until 2014. They apparently start out low and then ramp up in succeeding years until it makes no sense to pay the fine. The magic about 2014 is that that is the year that the new insurance pools are supposed to be in place, so you will be able to join a large risk pool as an individual. The basic idea is much like insurance through a job -- you won't pay a higher price based on your personal health issues.
I am less clear about the interim situation. My understanding is that there will be some sort of high-risk pool set up almost immediately to insure those who currently can't get insurance. I believe that the pool will be underwritten to some degree by the government, to keep the premiums within reason. You won't have to join that, but you will have the opportunity to.
Abortion, at least elective abortion, is not covered by the government pools at all. I believe that it will be theoretically possible for a woman to buy a rider through private insurance that would cover the cost of abortion. I don't know that any insurance currently offers such a thing, and it isn't clear whether the market prospects for it would be worth the business downside to set up. Nonetheless, my understanding is that it would be legal for such a thing to exist. The executive order apparently only assures that the government won't be involved in that business.
I have not read the bill itself -- I've only read the reporting on it, so none of this is guaranteed to be correct.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
..... That stood out to me as I thought I was one of the world experts in odd and inconvenient religious convictions (being SDA will do that to you), but even I'd never heard of people objecting to insurance....
Some Amish and Mennonite groups might.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Most private insurance in the US already covers abortion, cuz really, Blue Shield would much rather pay for your abortion than labor & delivery and another 18+ yrs of pediatrics. That wouldn't change under the new provisions, which, as orfeo noted, only apply to the government pools. Which points out the inherent flaw of the argument in the first place: most Americans already fund abortions through their insurance premiums. Somehow that's more moral than funding it through taxes?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Does anyone actually know what's in the bill that just passed?
I'm currently uninsured. When will I need to get insurance? [...]
You are likely to do quite well under the new bill. If you have been uninsured for at least 6 months, you will be able to purchase insurance in a government-organized pool of plans for 'high risk' individuals this year at a far lower cost than you can now. If your income is below a certain threshold, the cost of this plan will be subsidized for you. You cannot be excluded or dropped from this plan on account of getting sick or your pre-existing conditions. The price of a plan for an older person cannot be more than 4 times that of a younger person. Adjustment of the price based on your level of health is not permitted.
Currently, the bill ensures that no federal money will be used to pay for an abortion. Persons who want to purchase additional insurance to cover abortions may do so, but states may individually prevent this practice. This only covers insurance from the pool, not employer-provided insurance (or self-purchased) from private companies outside of the pool.
The exact provisions of the insurance plans that will be open to you are yet to be determined. There will be minimum standards that such plans have to adhere to in order for a plan to be in the pool. I expect there will be a number of creative ways companies will attempt to do that. Some plans will limit care to certain facilities, just as HMOs do now. Others may allow a wider selection of doctors but limit how much they pay toward any visit or procedure; you may be responsible for the rest, but it seems like it would still be a bargain compared to paying everything yourself, given that you have a chronic condition.
Things may change somewhat in the final version after the reconciliation measure is passed.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Most Americans already fund abortions through their insurance premiums. Somehow that's more moral than funding it through taxes?
That's what I've been wondering, too...?
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Choirboy wrote, quote:
[I]t seems like it would still be a bargain compared to paying everything yourself, given that you have a chronic condition.
By paying cash and avoiding unnecessary tests and the like, I end up paying about twenty percent of what insurance covers. This is suspiciously about the same as a copayment. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
But the real reason I stopped getting insurance was because I had my appendicitis denied as a pre-existing condition. Why pay premiums when I know the insurance company isn't going to cover anything anyway? Fool me once...
I know that's supposed to end. It will be interesting to see what loopholes the insurance companies managed to get put in place. I hope I'm not forced to buy a product that doesn't do any good.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Buy it when you need it is fine until you suddenly require something very expensive; like a heart bypass. What I wonder, is how you know when tests are unnecessary ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
What I wonder, is how you know when tests are unnecessary ?
I turn down unnecessary tests all the time. I ask what the test will show and when the results will be known. For example, a problem solved by an antibiotic they are prescribing immediately, test results don't be known until after the antibiotics are done--I refuse the tests in the grounds that the antibiotics are sufficient test. It works, or it doesn't and that's when we do a test to figure out the next step.
Always surprises doctors when I say no.
I've said no to quite a number of surgeries over the years, too, and I'm still here. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I value the docs who discuss options with me instead of throwing prescriptions and tests at me.
(I don't always fill prescriptions. I discuss with the pharmacist what it's for and what the negative effects are, and I go looking on line for safer and cheaper herbal or alt med approaches, then I decide whether to use the drug or a different method. Pharmaceuticals can be lifesavers, but their side effects can be so damaging, as a friend with liver failure from pharmaceuticals proves.)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I discuss with the pharmacist what it's for and what the negative effects are, and I go looking on line for safer and cheaper herbal or alt med approaches, then I decide whether to use the drug or a different method.
Couple of questions; why can't you have the side effect discussion with the doctor before the prescription, why is the doctor not prescribing the cheapest effective version of the drug, do you go for empirically validated herbal and alt med approaches, if you don't have the test how do you know the anti-biotic caused you to get better rather than say remission of a chronic condition that flares up from time to time ?
I spent years being told I just had a cold and was prone to them, or being treated for a chest infection developed after said cold (effectively, the anti-biotics killed whatever caused the bronchitus that developed as a secondary effect) before I got a GP with enough nous to order the tests that determined I had unstable asthma. She said, you have had a cough longer than x time, I will send you for a chest x-ray and give you a device to measure your peak-flow. X-ray was clear, peak-flow diurnal variation diagnosed my asthma.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phos Hilaron
Shipmate
# 6914
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Janine posts: quote:
but because it's Medicaid I (my employer) can't deny anyone, must see them within 24 hours if they won't be swayed. For every damned hangnail, sniffle and hickey.
But aren't hickeys a chronic condition in some circles?
You obviously move in the wrong (or maybe the right) circles
--------------------
Gaero?.......Gaero!
Posts: 1684 | From: Choson | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I discuss with the pharmacist what it's for and what the negative effects are, and I go looking on line for safer and cheaper herbal or alt med approaches, then I decide whether to use the drug or a different method.
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
Couple of questions; why can't you have the side effect discussion with the doctor before the prescription
I agree. In general, I think that's exactly the discussion doctors should be aiming for - allowing the patient to take an informed decision based on the information they have.
I'm completely in favour of being critical about taking treatment. We often have too high an opinion of the efficacy of treatment given, and not enough consideration of the potential side effects.
What I'm also not clear about is why one wouldn't be equally critical about the herbal/alternative route. Very little treatment in that category has any evidence to support it.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
What I'm also not clear about is why one wouldn't be equally critical about the herbal/alternative route. Very little treatment in that category has any evidence to support it.
Yes but some does.
A lot of herbal medicine is really just using appropriate drugs, no different from using synthetic drugs, except these ones grow on trees and aren't patented.
At least some naturally occurring herbal remedies have been subjected to the same kinds of tests as synthetic drugs - for example St John's Wort and garlic. Morphine is a a herbal remedy!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
At least some naturally occurring herbal remedies have been subjected to the same kinds of tests as synthetic drugs - for example St John's Wort and garlic. Morphine is a a herbal remedy!
However, different over the counter products can contain very different amounts of the active herb - it is very difficult to know what you're buying.
Herbs that are effective also have side-effects and contraindications. It is not a simple case of good (herbal) and bad (pharma) medicine. I'm in favour of informed choice, but I don't think you can rely on the high street health food shop to provide that information.
[ 23. March 2010, 14:01: Message edited by: Erroneous Monk ]
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
Very interested in what people will say when the earth doesn't collapse into itself over the next year, like so many have been predicting. The complaints are going to turn into, "Well yeah but just wait another few years and THEN you'll see!" There's a good article in the Times about that from yesterday.
Personally I would have been behind this bill if they estimated it to cost $100 trillion, and I'm completely behind requiring everyone to get insurance, so I don't see much of a downside here.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Think wrote, quote:
[W]hy can't you have the side effect discussion with the doctor before the prescription, why is the doctor not prescribing the cheapest effective version of the drug[?]
I do discuss my medications with my doctor. But a doctor is not a pharmacist. They often don't know about the drugs they prescribe.
Doctors learn about new drugs from drug company reps. They then prescribe what they think works. Since most patients don't care about cost because they're insured and they want "the best", most doctors don't take the time to find a cheaper alternative.
Taking time to discuss lower cost options or alternative options to drugs will help your doctor find a treatment that's right for you. Make sure to then discuss all your drugs (including the herbals) with your pharmacist. Pharmacists know things like which drugs use shared enzymes and shouldn't be taken at the same time.
Also, don't take unneeded drugs. This is very important with herbals as well. Remember hemlock is an all natural, herbal supplement. Herbs may contain "drugs" you don't need as well as the ones your looking for.
Not all conditions need to be treated. A doctor may prescribe a drug because you mentioned a minor complaint. Make sure to ask if you can skip it and live with symptoms.
Doctors take an oath not to share medical knowledge with their patients. Sometimes this leads them to being tight lipped. Make sure to talk about changes to your drugs before you make them. It's possible the drug you thought was for a hangnail is keeping you alive.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I do discuss my medications with my doctor. But a doctor is not a pharmacist. They often don't know about the drugs they prescribe.
They really ought to !
quote:
Doctors learn about new drugs from drug company reps. They then prescribe what they think works.
One would hope they read and critically appraised the professional literature - as they are trained to do. (Personally I am also in favour of the move to stop accepting CPD events from phamarmaceutical companies.)
quote:
Since most patients don't care about cost because they're insured and they want "the best", most doctors don't take the time to find a cheaper alternative.
Again, that is rather poor practice.
quote:
Pharmacists know things like which drugs use shared enzymes and shouldn't be taken at the same time.
True, but the doctors really ought to know this stuff too.
quote:
Doctors take an oath not to share medical knowledge with their patients. Sometimes this leads them to being tight lipped.
Never come across that idea before ? Are you sure about that, ours are supposed to copy every letter they write to the patient.
quote:
Make sure to talk about changes to your drugs before you make them. It's possible the drug you thought was for a hangnail is keeping you alive.
We agree on something *falls over knocked down by a passing feather*
As regards herbal medications, it is certainly true that effective herbal medications may also have side-effects St John's Wort being the one that spring's most obviously to mind.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Doctors take an oath not to share medical knowledge with their patients.
I'm probably going to be sorry I asked, but WTF?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Doctors take an oath not to share medical knowledge with their patients.
Wow. That is weapons-grade stupidity right there.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Doctors take an oath not to share medical knowledge with their patients.
Funny. I've worked in hospitals for seven years now and I've never heard that oath. Do you have the words? I think I'll need to make sure my docs are up to date on their oaths.
(I'm wondering if Dumples is actually talking about HIPAA Title II [Healthcare Insurance Portability and Accountability Act], which is focused on ensuring patient information privacy in this age of electronic medical records. It has a heck of a lot of impact on the daily life of us medical professionals, but it impacts patients primarily through the need to sign waivers to share information between insurers and healthcare providers, which can sound like an oath to not discuss medical information. Even though it's not an oath, it's a fear of lawsuits...)
[ 23. March 2010, 17:31: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jason™:
Very interested in what people will say when the earth doesn't collapse into itself over the next year, like so many have been predicting. The complaints are going to turn into, "Well yeah but just wait another few years and THEN you'll see!" There's a good article in the Times about that from yesterday.
Personally I would have been behind this bill if they estimated it to cost $100 trillion, and I'm completely behind requiring everyone to get insurance, so I don't see much of a downside here.
As long as you have no particular understanding of or affection for our Constitution there is no downside, and whats a hundred trillion of someone else's dollars between parasites anyway? I say print it and get it in circulation, the faster the better!
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Dumplin Jeff:
quote:
Doctors take an oath not to share medical knowledge with their patients.
Last time I went to see a Doctor when I wasn't feeling well he diagnosed my illness and prescribed a course of drugs to make me feel better. I was under the impression that this was fairly common behaviour among the medical profession. I had no idea that he had violated his Blood Oath of Secrecy and could be struck off for malpractice for letting me in on the Hidden And Arcane Knowledge, Too Dark For Meer Mortals To Bear And Which Must Be Confined Only To A Handful Of Elect Initiates Lest Dread Ry'leh Rises From It's Watery Grave and Cthulhu Wreaks Chaos And Darkness Across The World that I was suffering from shingles.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes but some does.
A lot of herbal medicine is really just using appropriate drugs, no different from using synthetic drugs, except these ones grow on trees and aren't patented.
At least some naturally occurring herbal remedies have been subjected to the same kinds of tests as synthetic drugs - for example St John's Wort and garlic. Morphine is a a herbal remedy!
I don't think garlic really works, and St John's wort barely works. Morphine isn't really a herbal remedy - it's a highly processed extract of a herb (or plant?).
Many of the active ingredients that way today use with herbal sources (aspirin, digoxin, morphine, artemisinin) when used as herbal remedies are either in too low doses to be likely to be effective, used for the wrong thing (e.g. artmemisinin used for piles for centuries although now a potent anti-malarial) or if they were effective were often dangerous because of the uncertainty about dosing and impurities in the herbal mixtures (e.g. morphine).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Doctors learn about new drugs from drug company reps. They then prescribe what they think works.
It pains me to admit this is often true. It summarizes what is deeply wrong with much of modern medicine.
What they should do (and what many do) is to learn about new drugs from reputable journals publishing hard evidence, look to guidaince from their professional bodies, apply this all with a healthy dose of cynicism regarding who sponsored the study/professional body, and then have an open chat with their patients about what they can prove and what they really have evidence for (rather than just what they think) and let the patient decide.
What they personally "think" works shouldn't come into it much. And what the drug rep said bloody well shouldn't come into it at all. They shouldn't talk to them.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Spouse
Ship's Pedant
# 3353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Not all conditions need to be treated. A doctor may prescribe a drug because you mentioned a minor complaint. Make sure to ask if you can skip it and live with symptoms.
This is about the only part of your post I can agree with. A little cross-pond perspective: Last year Dr Mrs Spouse & I were in California for several months. By the good fortune of HIPAA, the UK National Health Service qualified us for coverage under an HMO plan without pre-existing conditions (it counts as a 'Governmental plan').
I did notice that the doctors had a tendency to prescribe first and check symptoms later; much more so than doctors over here, who will frequently tell you that the problems may not need drugs to get better.
Having diabetes and not having health coverage is just scary. I hope you never get really sick.
Why is it wrong for doctors to get knowledge from the drug companies? Where do pharmacists learn? I'm grateful to the ones that contact me from time to time offering new equipment to monitor and control my condition, which I can then discuss with my doctor for him to prescribe. What if Lilly want to give me a $150 insulin pen for free on the basis they will get it back on prescriptions? So long as it's keeping me healthy and I'm not being actively denied better treatment I don't really care.
I can't say I understand the objections to the health bill. Having had a very limited opportunity to directly compare the 'social coverage' of the NHS and the free-for-all that is the US system, our imperfect money trap is so, so far preferable. I know if I am sick, I can see a doctor. If I break my arm, I can visit the hospital and not have to check my credit card limit first. It will take time to settle down - these things always do - but I hope that very soon people will wonder what the fuss was all about.
--------------------
Try to have a thought of your own, thinking is so important. - Blackadder
Posts: 1814 | From: Here, there & everywhere | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
The article I read summarizing the changes said there would be exemptions for those who religious convictions precluded them from getting insurance. That stood out to me as I thought I was one of the world experts in odd and inconvenient religious convictions (being SDA will do that to you), but even I'd never heard of people objecting to insurance. But there ya go ... I guess as soon as somebody comes up with anything, someone else finds a religious basis for objecting to it.
MA exempts Christian Scientists from having to get health insurance. It isn't that they object to health insurance -- they object to health care. So the insurance is meaningless for them, and the law in MA said that they did not have to get the insurance. I expect the federal law is similar.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Spouse:
I can't say I understand the objections to the health bill.
The only objections I understand are the ones that say it doesn't go far enough.
In my opinion, America, the Democrats and Obama have missed the opportunity of a lifetime to do something truly memorable. Now that "Healthcare Reform" has been done, nobody is going to have the political capital or willpower to push reform further for a long time. Public insurance, a single-payer system, further extension of preventative medicine, and many other good things will not now happen. That is something to be mourned. If centerist Democrat Congresspeople had taken a long-term view (instead of worrying about re-election) they could have got the job done. As it is, they bottled it. It's a shame.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
As long as you have no particular understanding of or affection for our Constitution there is no downside, and whats a hundred trillion of someone else's dollars between parasites anyway? I say print it and get it in circulation, the faster the better!
That's true, I do hate the Constitution. And liberty. Fucking liberty.
I'm sorry but I have trouble taking anyone seriously who was ok with spending trillions of dollars to fight them ter'ists abroad so we don't have to fight them at home but are now whining about spending money to keep all those newly protected individuals healthy.
Hurrah for the Patriot Act, but healthcare is a loss of liberty. Ha!
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jason™:
Very interested in what people will say when the earth doesn't collapse into itself over the next year, like so many have been predicting.
This bit made me wonder about 'sustainability'. Depending on who you listen to, Medicare / Medicaid / Social Security / Massachusetts State Health Care are all doomed to implode in some not too distant future.
It would be nice to REALLY know who is right about that aspect.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
