TrackerNeil Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 [quote name='Chataya de Venoge' post='1683032' date='Feb 11 2009, 12.12']That's very true, IMO, although you could say "individualistic" rather than "corrupt". That's why I believe the "unique snowflake" argument - we (as a culture) don't have the sense of civic duty often found abroad, and we also have a litigiousness that isn't found in other cultures.[/quote] I don't think it would be unreasonable to place liability caps on services done through publicly financed health plans. That would help deal with some of the litigiousness you're worried about, Chataya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebla Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 [quote name='snake' post='1682878' date='Feb 11 2009, 09.30']Obviously you never worked hard enough Trebla. If you did, none of that would have happened. ;)[/quote] lol, perhaps. I was only working 11 hour days on a base salary. :P and the " we're just not a caring enough [b]society[/b]" is just crap. Admit that some individuals are just selfish. Let's seperate that from people who do care for others. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 [quote]There are a lot of people who are happy with the current system. They have employer-provided health care, and they don't want to be forced into a government plan, with the possibility of being forced to see a different doctor. They also don't want their tax rates to rise because they're paying for other people's health care coverage.[/quote]I'm sure there are a lot of people happy with the current system. So? There were plenty of people satisfied by all sorts of inequitable schemes that fucked over a minority. Plenty of people were happy when abortion was illegal. Plenty were happy when slavery was legal. Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make it reasonable. As long as there are a good chunk of people who are simply not served by health care the system is a failure. As long as the US spends twice as much money as other countries on health care that doesn't cover 20% of the population, the system is a failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 [quote name='Take on Me' post='1682821' date='Feb 11 2009, 09.36']Unique Snowflake? I think you're getting the wrong idea. We're talking about an industry that generates tens of billions in profit every year. I'm just not seeing a way to introduce major government involvement. Not in the near future. I just don't think we're ready to take it on. Now would be the time though, since the corporate administration/congress is gone.[/quote] So, again, the US is a unique snowflake and what's worked in every other 1st world country won't work there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 [quote name='anguy' post='1682709' date='Feb 11 2009, 06.47']NonAmericans shouldn't be so happy about US being closer to UHC now. What many people fail to realize is the fact, that UHC systems in other countries are so effective relatively to US, is because US consumers defacto subsidize them. Just compare the drug prices. Govts of UHC countries limit the price of drugs, so the companies (that find it difficult to negotiate with govts) simply increase the price of drugs in US. The result? US with 3% of world population now has 50% of drug market. EU with population twice the size of US has 25%. So in case US goes UHC and adopts strict drug cost limits, like other countries, you should expect significant drug prices sin Canada, EU, Japan etc., because Big Pharma will no longer be able to cover half of their expenses from US sales.[/quote] Except if they could force those other countries to pay more, they already would. Prices aren't low in Canada/the UK/etc because the US is subsidizing the costs, they are low because of the power of collective bargaining. Pharma companies don't gouge people in the US because they need to in order to cover their costs, they do it because THEY CAN. Because it makes them shitloads of money and the system in the US is tailored to their desire to rape people for as much as they can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stego Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 We need Universal Healthcare [i]now[/i]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walpurgisborn Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 [quote name='Triskele' post='1682643' date='Feb 11 2009, 04.18']"this isn't Sweden, not everyone here is the same as everyone else."[/quote] I knew it... they're all clones! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsoert Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Wait, 46 million people, in the worlds only super power, don't have basic health care and people are OK with this? If someone told me 46 million in India then maybe I could understand, it being a developing nation but still relatively poor, but the USA? Fuck no. I believe someone, possibly Chataya, made a comment about people getting healthcare for problems they caused i.e. fat people with heart disease? Firstly, there's research thats been done that suggests that body weight is pretty much stable, making losing weight very difficult. One of the gastoenterologists at my hospital (med student, I assume Aemon is a Canadian compatriate?) gave a lecture regarding bypass surgery, suggesting that weight loss is very difficult with solely diet and exercise due to the fact that once 10% of your mass is lost certain hormone levels shoot up, stimulating the appetite. Secondly, this completely disregards the background conditions stimulating weight gain, including psychological illness. Would you have them disregarded for medical care too? What about people with lung cancer who started smoking back in the day when they were told it was actually good for them? Given the over 75% failure to quite long term rate thats not really something you can hold against them (I think it's actually closer to 95% but can't remember for sure) Aemon - you mentioned something about not attempting CPR if deemed pointless. I assumed you meant a DNR order right? Hopefully discussed with patients or next of kin before hand? Only about 1% of ALS attempts actually succeed but I'd agree that there are some who it's worth attempting on than others. Could this all have something to do with the American Dream as well? That people think they can break into the elite crowd of rich bastards so would rather not kick up a fuss now in case their future health care is fecked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aemon Stark Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 [quote name='Tsoert' post='1683422' date='Feb 11 2009, 18.45']I believe someone, possibly Chataya, made a comment about people getting healthcare for problems they caused i.e. fat people with heart disease? Firstly, there's research thats been done that suggests that body weight is pretty much stable, making losing weight very difficult. One of the gastoenterologists at my hospital (med student, I assume Aemon is a Canadian compatriate?) gave a lecture regarding bypass surgery, suggesting that weight loss is very difficult with solely diet and exercise due to the fact that once 10% of your mass is lost certain hormone levels shoot up, stimulating the appetite. Secondly, this completely disregards the background conditions stimulating weight gain, including psychological illness. Would you have them disregarded for medical care too? What about people with lung cancer who started smoking back in the day when they were told it was actually good for them? Given the over 75% failure to quite long term rate thats not really something you can hold against them (I think it's actually closer to 95% but can't remember for sure)[/quote] Yep, I am indeed. Coincidentally, I saw a patient today who had had a quadruple bypass and pacemaker (more recently a much more expensive ICD!) put in 10 years ago following a heart attack. I guess, if he'd had no insurance, he'd simply have been responsible for his lifetime of obvious indulgence and inactivity, and so not eligible for treatment at public expense thanks to the judgements of armchair physicians. Re: weight loss - I seem to remember that a major difficulty with weight loss is that, once new fat cells appear, they never go away, so that losing weight simply by diet/exercise will never remove it entirely (short of outright starvation, I suppose!). [quote]Aemon - you mentioned something about not attempting CPR if deemed pointless. I assumed you meant a DNR order right? Hopefully discussed with patients or next of kin before hand? Only about 1% of ALS attempts actually succeed but I'd agree that there are some who it's worth attempting on than others.[/quote] Yep. From what some residents have told me, resuscitation codes are becoming less and less common - one R3 had attended only one per year of her residency. [quote]Could this all have something to do with the American Dream as well? That people think they can break into the elite crowd of rich bastards so would rather not kick up a fuss now in case their future health care is fecked?[/quote] Inflammatory... but sure, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 [quote name='Tsoert' post='1683422' date='Feb 11 2009, 14.45']Wait, 46 million people, in the worlds only super power, don't have basic health care and people are OK with this?[/quote] yes. Of course. many of us are, in fact HAPPY that they don't have coverage. I mean, who WOULDN'T be? Clearly that is what people raising concerns about UHC have been saying. Thanks for the clarification! :rolleyes: [quote]. I believe someone, possibly Chataya, made a comment about people getting healthcare for problems they caused i.e. fat people with heart disease? Firstly, there's research thats been done that suggests that body weight is pretty much stable, making losing weight very difficult. One of the gastoenterologists at my hospital (med student, I assume Aemon is a Canadian compatriate?) gave a lecture regarding bypass surgery, suggesting that weight loss is very difficult with solely diet and exercise due to the fact that once 10% of your mass is lost certain hormone levels shoot up, stimulating the appetite.[/quote] You burn more calories than you take in, you lose weight. hormones cannot alter the laws of physics. [quote]Could this all have something to do with the American Dream as well? That people think they can break into the elite crowd of rich bastards so would rather not kick up a fuss now in case their future health care is fecked?[/quote] Right, because only rich bastards have health insurance. All 250 million or so of them. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aemon Stark Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 [quote name='Swordfish' post='1683497' date='Feb 11 2009, 19.51']You burn more calories than you take in, you lose weight. hormones cannot alter the laws of physics.[/quote] Oh really? :rolleyes: Go look up Cushing's syndrome or hypercortisolism. In fact, go read about what cortisol does in general. Then perhaps you could read up on leptin (hint: leptin, resistance to), dyslipidemia, and hypothyroidism (though, strictly speaking, this latter one doesn't cause fat-derived weight gain). Maybe after that you could acquaint yourself with how metabolism actually works instead of relying on the metaphorical "burning" of calories. The fact remains, of course, that eating less will generally cause weight loss, it may not cause anywhere near as much as desired and, at a certain point, such weight loss will be distinctly unhealthy. In fact, you could go one better and familiarize yourself with the social determinants of health. As it turns out, being poor is bad for your health even aside from lack of access to care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsoert Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 [quote name='Swordfish' post='1683497' date='Feb 11 2009, 23.51']yes. Of course. many of us are, in fact HAPPY that they don't have coverage. I mean, who WOULDN'T be? Clearly that is what people raising concerns about UHC have been saying. Thanks for the clarification! :rolleyes: You burn more calories than you take in, you lose weight. hormones cannot alter the laws of physics. Right, because only rich bastards have health insurance. All 250 million or so of them. :rolleyes:[/quote] Yes, because patronising people has been shown to lead to polite conversation on these boards..... I'll echo what I've previously said, what Aemon's already said and add some more shall I. Firstly you have the learned psychological behaviours to overcome with regards to food. Parents often use food as a reward system, it being a treat, thus when you feel down and need a "treat" people often turn to unhealthy foods. Secondly you have the fact that many unhealthy foods are the commonest ones that release dopamine making you feel happier and are as such often binged on by unhappy people (this is a mechanism I'm fairly familiar with I can assure you) Depression saps energy and motivation making gym going and general exercise taking something less likely to be done. As such some depressive conditions are obviously going to be associated with weight loss Finally, Aemons already mentioned the many drug induced pathways to obesity (steroids leading to cushing's being a common one), and metabolism. There's also genetic causes such as Prader-Willi and Bardet-Biedl The fact is people saying "eat less and exercise more" can say that all they want but that isn't a solution and it isn'tgetting to the main thrust of the problem. Many things need to be addressed before just saying "eat less, exercise more" could be viewed as a reasonable response to obesity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_BlauerDragon Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 [quote name='Aemon Stark' post='1683518' date='Feb 11 2009, 17.04']In fact, you could go one better and familiarize yourself with the social determinants of health. As it turns out, being poor is bad for your health even aside from lack of access to care.[/quote] Aint that the truth... I have excellent health insurance, but I'm poor and it takes a toll on my health regardless of access to health care... I think it's mostly the fact that I have to eat cheap if I want to eat daily and cheap does NOT equal healthy... add my celiac to the equation and I feel sick almost all the damned time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Eating cheaply is part of it. Another part is the stress; poor people tend to be more stressed out than more affluent people. Another is the environment. Lots of factors, but the correlation is absolutely there; poor people tend to have worse health, and it's one of the easiest ways to predict success. There was a really awesome study a couple years back which linked health to racism. It was bizarre and awesome; basically the control was that those who fell into high socioeconomic backgrounds but experienced racism had worse health than those who didn't, regardless of their phenotype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 [quote name='Swordfish' post='1683497' date='Feb 11 2009, 15.51']Right, because only rich bastards have health insurance. All 250 million or so of them.[/quote] Since the population of the U.S. is 300 million, since you acknowledge that 250 million of them are insured, and since every number I've seen indicates uninsured Americans are about 45 million, can you stop with the "40 to 100 million" you keep tossing out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sToNED_CAT Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 [quote name='Shryke' post='1683302' date='Feb 11 2009, 16.54']Except if they could force those other countries to pay more, they already would. Prices aren't low in Canada/the UK/etc because the US is subsidizing the costs, they are low because of the power of collective bargaining. Pharma companies don't gouge people in the US because they need to in order to cover their costs, they do it because THEY CAN. Because it makes them shitloads of money and the system in the US is tailored to their desire to rape people for as much as they can get.[/quote] The "power of collective bargaining" is not unlimited. Those negotiations could become simply much difficult in future for countries involved. Do you think that the sudden loss of 30% of their revenues wouldn't affect the R&D costs for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 [quote name='anguy' post='1683706' date='Feb 11 2009, 21.15']The "power of collective bargaining" is not unlimited. Those negotiations could become simply much difficult in future for countries involved. Do you think that the sudden loss of 30% of their revenues wouldn't affect the R&D costs for example?[/quote] The R&D costs that are incurred by university studies so that the drug companies are able to pick only winners (or likely winners)? I've mentioned this before also, some drug companies spend up to 1/3 of their budget on advertisements...for prescription drugs. Complete waste of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubby Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 [quote name='Triskele' post='1683740' date='Feb 12 2009, 11.48']We are also one of the only (or we may now be the only) nations that allows [b]direct-to-consumer advertising[/b]. I wonder if that could have anything to do with us being over-medicated.[/quote] We could not help but notice this when we were over there last year. It was surreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 My favorite is still the one medication (can't remember the name) that listed "Fatal Intestinal Bleeding" as one of it's side effects. I was like "FATAL?!? WHAT. THE. FUCK." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 [quote name='Shryke' post='1683760' date='Feb 11 2009, 22.14']My favorite is still the one medication (can't remember the name) that listed "Fatal Intestinal Bleeding" as one of it's side effects. I was like "FATAL?!? WHAT. THE. FUCK."[/quote] Come on Shryke, isn't it worth the risk so that you can get an erection again? :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.