This time they are going too far. It's been bad enough that healthcare in this country has been in a crisis situation for over a decade now. High cost, have to have insurance through the corporation, politicians bought off by the providers and all that good stuff, has been upsetting some of us.

But now there is a new wrinkle, which I have discovered over the last month. We've just had a new baby girl and two things really annoyed me: First, the hospital no longer gives birth certificates. That's right, I could not get one once my daughter was realeased from the hospital. We now have to order one from the state of Texas. Cost: about 12.00. Why? When we had my other daughter just two years ago the hospital gave us a nice new certificate at no cost. Now the "new deal" passed by the fools in Austin is nothing but a new tax - on babies! And you know it's only 12.00 now, but give them a few years. It will soon be much higher. But wait this gets better.

The state also has a few tests that are required for all new born babies. And guess what? Insurance does not cover the new required tests. Right again. Whoever has a new baby will now have to pay for the tests out-of-pocket, because the insurance compainies think the tests are unnecessary. How bogus is that?

This is a really good board for a topic like this. I know that there are many SPers who hail from many different places with different healthcare systems and my question is two-fold:
Would you trade your current system for one like we have here in the USA? Do you see anything in our system that would make you want yours to be like this? Second, if you do live in the USA, what in the world do you find appealing about our bogus system? I would really appreciate any input, as I am preparing a rather lengthy letter to my useless US senator, US congressman, and State senator. And did I mention that they were all republicans? Yay!

I know there are scant few conservatives on this board, but if you feel like defending the current system, then do so. But why in the world are you oppossed to universal healthcare? I mean like almost every industrialized country has it. What's the "deal" here?

I don't defend the current system, and I am Conservative. I have found ways to get around the system, sometimes even fighting to maintain that freedom. It's not pretty, but to paint this as a liberal/conservative issue is short-sighted. True conservatives believe in leaving people alone to determine their own destiny (maybe that is now called Libertarian), Liberals want to enforce a system of lowest common denominator for the good of all.

Chandos, the current state of health care in America is a real issue, but to make it lib/con is a mistake. Just think for a minute about "It takes a village"...the strongest statement of big-brotherism.

EDIT: refuse those tests...when you push your right for medical self direction, the system will crumble before you. Stand up and let no one tell you what to do with your body, or that of anyone in your family. This is vital. If you have any questions, pm me.

[ November 06, 2003, 05:20: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

I agree, the ludicrous positions held by most political parties are an obvious sham. I support no health-care system that I no of. My advice: screw the tests, look into it a bit and take care of your own daughter, and above all else, avoid immunisations. I know this could spark a debate but I have had experiences with the negative effects of such, and there is enough research out there to prove that it is, like a lot of the medical world too, a sham. In my mind it is not worth the risk. There are some Homeopathic alternatives that do not involve the actual disease if you feel it is necesarry, and I believe they have been trialed and found the most successful in many European countries. Perhaps someone from Sweden or Switzerland (as I believe this is the area the tests were most researched) could verify this.

Hell I had chicken-pox about 4 times anyway, and my Grandfather had measles like 7 times, so anyone who tells you that you will always build an immunity to anything is lying or neive.

Back on topic (sorry about that) the only real way we can evoke change is to ignore the politicians like the fools they are. If no-one listens to them they no-longer have any power, and people can solve things in a more effective, and less exploitative, manner.

I like to steal:

antiquated Tory: Time for a quick note on how the American health system actually does use money from the heavily insured to subsidize the uninsured, along with some other goodies:

I worked in an inner-city American hospital a few years ago as a research assistant. Since I was doing research across several departments I had access to more of the patient database than the doctors did. They were very surprised by some of the things I told them.

1. The destitute as a excellent source of hospital income: Eurobrunchers, you may be surprised to know that in America we don't let the very poor cough their lungs up onto the sidewalk and have the rubbish collectors pick up their bodies in the morning, as so many on your continent apparently believe. No, we have this thing called Medicaid, which is a federally mandated but state administered program providing medical care for the poor.

By state administered, this means every state has different criteria for qualifying for medicaid and provides different benefits. The hospital in which I worked was located in DC, meaning that routinely we had to deal with Maryland, Virginia and DC Medicaid, each of which has a separate set of forms and regulations (see Billing Bureaucracy below). However, what they pretty much all have in common is that you have to be unemployed and penniless to qualify (see Working Poor below). Djeli, might need to ask for internal bookmarks and links one of these days.

Take DC Medicaid for an example. This pays the first $6,000/month of medical expenses per qualifying adult or child, no deductible, no conditions. This comes no where close to covering the costs of long-term hospitalization, as per our AIDS-ward residents. However, it does nicely cover emergency room visits...
The emergency room serves as the primary care giver in American inner cities. This has become entrenched in the culture to the point that when clinics and private doctors are made available to Medicaid recipients, they will still go to the emergency room for minor complaints so as not to "bother the doctor."

In the emergency room at the hospital where I worked, this meant upwards of 1000 visits a day because "my baby got a fever." Over 70% of charts ended up being marked either "URI," for a generic cold/flu, or "WNL" for "Within Normal Limits," because the fever reduced in the waiting room.
Note that these are not emergencies by any definition. Note that this is a massive waste of hospital resources. Note that the minimum fee for walking into the hospital was $850, and that was in 1990. Every dime of this fee would be paid by DC Medicaid, no questions asked. If they actually took a sample or wanted a follow-up, the fee jumped to either $1050 or $1200. Note that few of the doctors or nurses had any idea this kind of charge was being racked up.

Hospital admin types would throw up their hands and say "What can we do? We know it isn't appropriate use of the emergency room, but if we tell those people to take their kids someplace else and one of them develops pneumonia or something, they'll sue us for millions." But also note how damn much money the hospital was making out of Medicaid at $850 a pop for examining healthy babies.

2. The working poor: Matters are very different for poor Americans with jobs. They do not qualify for Medicaid in any State I have heard of. Yet their jobs do not provide them with insurance and they cannot afford it out of pocket. What's the minimum charge these days, Ameribrunchers? $250 a month for the crappiest HMO?
What to do if you are self-employed and end up an in-patient? You can easily run up a $20,000 or $30,000 bill and your income is only $15,000 p.a. It's unlikely you could ever pay this even if you wanted to.

The numbers of working poor far outstrip the number of people on Medicaid. Then again, and despite the belief of many Europeans to the contrary, we can't really let the working poor or their kids just die because they don't have insurance. So our hospital, at least, would treat them and write it off as an accounting loss. Which brings us to:

3. The billing bureaucracy: Yes, the unsung Robin Hoods of American health care.
You see, medical bills are predicated according to three main features: the primary diagnoses, performed proceedures and consumed materials (incl. bed space).

Each of these is indicated by a code in a patient's medical record. Another code is "payor class," indicating the form of insurance or Medicaid or the dreaded 'self-pay.'
Now, you may think that labelling a patient's diagnosis or the procedure performed upon him/her is all nice and objective. But it isn't. Often there are a number of codes that can describe the same condition or procedure. There is also a judgement call of which diagnosis is "primary," and patients are charged according to the primary diagnosis.

Therefore every hospital employs a bill coding expert. This person is paid on the same level as a surgeon, and with good reason. He/she keeps track of how much each procedure or diagnosis costs and what the benefits are of every insurance plan. The goal is to decrease the bills of self-payors, with the expectation that the hospital will need to write them off anyway, maximize the bills of Blue Cross/Blue Shield Turboninjatastic Plan A coverees, and manipulate the bills of everyone else to be as close to the maximum their insurance will pay as possible but not over, or not too far over.

This expert in turn instructs an army of clerks to carry out his/her guidelines. Another army of clerks keeps track of the hundreds of different insurance forms that need to be filled out and regulations that need to be consulted--because every state's Medicaid and every private insurance company has a different set of forms and regulations. The billing department of the hospital thus ends up larger than most, if not all of the medical departments.

The resulting situation manages to fulful the nightmares of both left and right. Semi-literate high-school dropouts go to the hospital for completely inappropriate reasons, costing the taxpayers millions. The lower working class end up with no cover at all, either not getting the care they need or getting care for real emergencies, but getting laden with bills they cannot pay. The middle and upper classes then subsidize the system in two ways, both directly through taxes and indirectly through higher insurance charges to cover medical bill Robin Hoodism.

It would seem that the United States of America could come up with a system that would more rationally allocate resources and benefit everyone, wouldn't it?

The difficulty is, that there isn't a clear answer on what would be better. Socialized health care faces problems abroad, stealing again:

Patients who have major surgery in Britain are four times more likely to die than those in America, according to a major new study.

...

A team from University College London (UCL) and a team from Columbia University in New York jointly studied the medical fortunes of more than 1,000 patients at the Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan and compared them with nearly 1,100 patients who had undergone the same sort of major surgery at the Queen Alexandra Hospital in Portsmouth.

The results, which surprised even the researchers, showed that 2.5 per cent of the American patients died in hospital after major surgery, compared with just under 10 per cent of British patients. They found that there was a sevenfold difference in mortality rates when a subgroup of patients - the most seriously ill - were compared.

...

He also believes that the queue for treatment in the NHS would inevitably mean that British patients were more at risk. 'We would be suspicious that the diseases would be more advanced in the UK, simply because the waiting lists are longer.'

The New York patients had paid through private insurance to go to hospital and were therefore likely to be of a higher social class and healthier, whereas the NHS patients were from all social classes. The researchers attempted to level out social differences by rating each patient according to clinical status. http://society.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4748287-106632,00.html

The quality of care problem in socialized health care nations isn't an uncommon cry. From personal experience I met an elderly couple from Germany a couple of years ago that saved and flew to the US so the wife could have her hip replaced; she was tired of the wait.

Stealing again:

Trumpton: Certainly all of the western european social welfare systems in general have a definite crisis of funding at the moment, and social healthcare is a function of that. One of the answers is "increase taxes" but then you risk depressing the economy, and you don't necessarily get hugely increased revenue. Accross western Europe there is a shortage of new doctors (and nurses) being trained, because if you're sufficiently intelligent to take a medical degree competently, why would you spend 7 years studying to end up with a frankly mediocre rate of pay and horrible hours when you could be working (nominally) 9 to five as a lawyer or a management consultant* in 4 years and be raking it in? (the cynic materialist in me is speaking).

As for the current British system being a sustainable middle ground, I'm not sure how to answer that. Certainly the helath service is not currently as awful as it recently has been (and having previously astounded by waiting times in British hospitals, I've recently been flabbergasted by waiting times in German hospitals), but it seems to me to be suffering something of an identity crisis, and the hot air coming out of Westminster and Whitehall notwithstanding, it doesn't really seem to have a direction.
First, why think when others wil do it for you; it's part of my new cut and paste campaign. In seriousness though, the quoted posts from another thread from folks in Europe and the US make it seem to me that there is a health care problem everywhere. In the US there is a problem of coverage. In other nations there is a problem of being 'too socialized' as one Dutch poster put it.

A problem with comparing the US to other nations though is that it isn't necessarily comparable. For example, in small and relatively rich Denmark changes can be made quickly and the concerns aren't as broad.

It looks to me that health care problems is a conundrum facing most if not all the western nations whatever their particular approach due in part to an aging population. While certainly the US', like all nations', system is deficient I'm not convinced that another nation's approach will be workable in the US just as I'm not sure that the US approach would be workable abroad (there is a strong push to privatize abroad, particularly the UK apparently).

I can't emphasize enough what Manus is saying. I know that it may be a little strange for a God smackin' conservative and a humanistic liberal to agree...but we do. Do not accept what they tell you is required for the health of your daughter. I remember a scene that was enacted when I was enrolling my second in public school (they are all now home-schooled, by the way). Some administrative snot said, "Sir, you can't place your son in a class unless we have a record of his immunizations." I leaned into the lackey and said "Let me get this straight, you're saying that my son can not be educated with tax-payer dollars unless I consent to a medical invasion of privacy that has been challenged by authentic authority...answer clearly so we can get your quote right for the evening news."

My son finished that grade as an honor student, whence I promptly yanked him out of public school. I know it may be off topic, but home-schooled kids are now attracting scholarships from the finest colleges.

Don't ever give in. Don't believe what "top men" tell you.

Manus, I now truly believe that you are my evil clone. (private joke). My kids have done great, It's just other aspects of my life that have failed :confused:

wow, laches has a huge post that I haven't read yet. This was written without any knowlege of what he had to say.

The quality of care problem in socialized health care nations isn't an uncommon cry. From personal experience I met an elderly couple from Germany a couple of years ago that saved and flew to the US so the wife could have her hip replaced; she was tired of the wait.
Yes, for every one you can cite, the reverse can be found. Just one example would be cancer patients going to other countries for alternative treatments that often work.

Also, as far as the wait is concerned, my wife had to wait six weeks to get an appointment with her doctor during her last pregnancy. Before that she had to have emegency treatment because she waited too long as a result of having to see the specialist which was mandated by her insurance company. Some choice!

And yes, I also have friend who was a Vet and was carted all over Houston for emergency treatment before a hospital would take him. Again we come down to whose statistics and experiences you wish to believe.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/983140.asp
http://www.msnbc.com/news/982680.asp
http://www.msnbc.com/news/977139.asp

[ November 06, 2003, 06:26: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

First I would like to say that homeopathic treatments rest on a very shaky ground indeed. There is no scientific base for it all, as far as science is concerned, homeopathic solutions are pure water, nothing more, nothing less. However in tests they have seemed to show some results, why that is so I dont know. (I recently saw a documentary about this so dont think I am an expert on the subject).

As has been said all health care systems have problems, some as people showing up for nothing and draining resources are shared, others are not. One thing I perhaps could see as good about the US system is that if you have the money you can get top of the line treatment right away while in for instance the Swedish system you get more than adequate treatment after some waiting whether your money.
My main peeve with the American system is something Laches touched upon, if you are really poor and desolate with no work no nothing you get medicaid and you can get treatment, those groups are actually a lot better taken care off in the US than I thought, I more or less believed the die in the street thing on that issue. But it is the group of people who have jobs, but not very well paying jobs that get caught in the middle. Not enough money to get their own insurance and not little enough to get medicaid. This is a huge group and these are the real victims of the current system. I know of people who have had to pay up front cash for emergency procedures with money they didnt really have just because they werent poor enough for medicaid and didnt have a good enough job to get insurance. I also know of women who cant afford to go on the pill because a simple visit to a doctor to write her some so she can buy them costs more than 200$ and that is nothing she is able to afford. Birth control is pretty basic, people are going to have sex no matter what smoe people think about it and if they dont have easy access to birth control more people will be forced to create a family before it was really planned and forego their education, not to mention teen pregancies and abortions.

I like it how it is here, even though we have problems too, where you if you are ill go to the hospital, pay 15$ and for that you have more or less covered mostly everything they can do to you. I also prefer to pay for health care on my tax bill instead of on my insurance as it is in the end adds up more or less the same sums and you dont have to struggle with reluctant insurance companies who never like to actually pay out insurance money to their clients.

I'm not sure that the msnbc links show what you purport they show and I'm sceptical of 'alternative treatments' as well but lets put that aside.

I think my point is that what is good for the goose isn't necessarily what is good for the gander (how does one spell gander by the way?). The US has a history and mindset and infrastructure and... such that adopting what is done abroad may not be feasible or desirable. After all, these other nations are having their own health care problems which, according to folks who live there, are pretty bad too.

By focusing on them, we may not see other possibilities that may be unique possibilities under this system. Here is one idea:

One way to increase the number of insured Americans is to break the link between a job and a health insurance policy. Right now employers are subsidized to the tune of more than $140 billion per year in federal tax breaks to supply coverage for their employees. Employees do not pay taxes on health insurance benefits provided by their bosses. Individuals have to pay for their health plans with after-tax dollars. The goal should be to level the insurance playing field by giving the same tax break to all consumers, whether they work for a company or not.

Wharton economist Mark Pauly and American Enterprise Institute adjunct scholar John Hoff have calculated that, "A modest tax credit paying 50 percent of the premium would reduce the number of uninsured workers and family members with low incomes by as much as 52 percent." If health insurance for a family costs $8,000 per year, a 50 percent tax credit will mean that the family would be able to reduce their tax bill by $4,000 to pay half the cost of their policy. If Pauly and Hoff are right, such a tax credit would reduce the number of uninsured by 21 million, while giving them the flexibility to choose the coverage they want and the freedom to change jobs without fear of losing their health insurance There are also Medical Saving Account ideas being tossed around. There are a lot of ideas that may not work in the UK or Canada but might work in the US. Likewise, there may be ways to improve their systems that wouldn't be beneficial to the US.

The grass is always greener on the other side the saying goes. I'm not sure that it always is or that focusing on the grass over there makes things in the front yard any better.

Two words that will help a bunch "TORTE REFORM"

I have a brother and sister who are both doctors. They are incredibly frustrated when their hands are tied by the system. For example, in Washington state the average Medicare patient costs the doctor's office between $25-40/visit (costs at base line off-set by Medicare reimbursement). Because of this, many doctor's offices are sending these patients, often single mothers, away. Many saying it would be cheaper to hand them $20 and send them away than to treat them at all.

Where do these costs come in?

1) Paper-work
2) Malpractice Insurance
3) High cost of drugs

On Paper-work ... it takes 2-3 full time staff people to fill out and file all the paper work for one doctor. Most of this is due to HIPPA regulations, but it is also complicated by insurance policies.

On malpractice, most every surgeon faces nuisance law-suits. My brother was sued by a gentleman who had no case, but was nice, elderly and lived a good life. His lawyer told him, "He's a nice guy so the jury will want to give him something ... just settle." While it only amounted to a $15K settlement or such, those sorts of things add up.

The two above can be considerably reduced by Torte Reform. As long as patients can sue doctors with little consequence, they will be filling out paper work and paying huge malpractice costs just to "cover their butts".

Just my $0.02

(Oh, and Chandos, do what we did. Have the baby at home, after the cleaning bills, it still ended up being cheaper!)

What is frightening is how many of your health care decisions are being made by people who have no vested interest in your welfare. Insurance companies, with the "managed healthcare" mentality are an obvious target, but there is another that's usually missed.

Pharmaceutical companies spend millions of dollars to develop a drug that is some how unique, therefore insuring that they will have exclusivity to it for a period of time. All too often, the drug is developed, potential profits are analyzed, and then a use is found for the drug . The pharmaceutical industry is one of the largest funders of medical research, and believe me, they have a heavy hand in what research is done. When the drug is finally ready to go public, they spend billions of dollars on advertising (how often do we see "ask your doctor if <insert name> is right for you"), and they spend billions more selling those drugs to doctors. The price may be a bit more obtuse than in cash, other means are found to win the doctors loyalty...maybe a vacation at a ski resort, new golf clubs or even that cool new Mercedes...could even be buying lunch for all of the staff in the doctor's office.

You can bet that the next time you go see your doctor to be treated for <insert malady>, and he/she says "There's a new drug just released for your condition, I'd like to try you on it", you can bet he/she had lunch with the pharm. rep the day before.

I'm not slamming all doctors, drup reps or pharmaceutical companies, but the current mentality of marketing drugs instead of administering them leaves the patient as sort a chemical proving ground.

As far as alternative medicine goes, bear in mind that the studies that slam alt.med. are done by the same researchers who are finding uses for these new drugs. Modern medicine is very territorial and probably should be the last entity to evaluate the effectiveness of alt. med., it rather should work to determine the effectiveness of itself.

To comment from personal experience always has its pitfalls just as using statistics. But alternative medicine for cancer saved one of my relative's life. The doctors wrote him off, and he sought out alternative treatment and is now doing well. He researched so much that he now believes the biggest problem with heatlhcare here in the US is the medical establishment and the AMA.

@ Hacken Slash

Stand up and let no one tell you what to do with your body, or that of anyone in your family. Have we an actual living, breathing pro-choice conservative in our midst? Stop the world, I wanna get off. ;)

Laches- This is not a case of the "grass is greener." The company I work for just sent out a memo to all employees outlining its view of the current "healthcare crisis," and it is creating a forum for the issue. You may call this the "grass is greener" deabte, but it beats sitting around on your hands and sniffing happy gas, while the crisis continues.

Whoa, hold on Death Rabbit...stay on the world. No need to get off. Without saying too much, as it would not only be off topic but start a whole big bruhaha that I don't feel like dealing with...Yes, I am very "pro-choice", perhaps the most "pro-choice" person you will ever meet...I just don't happen to feel that abortion is an acceptable choice. Our choices extend over our own bodies, or to make responsible choices for our minor children. We can't, however, choose to end a life, which is what abortion is.

I bet this topic has been hammered to death on these boards, and don't really want to start it up again, just wanted to keep DR from doing anything drastic...maybe it would help if you considered me more of a Libertarian than a Conservative.

Just in time, HS. Still on the world. :D

My main peeve with the American system is something Laches touched upon, if you are really poor and desolate with no work no nothing you get medicaid and you can get treatment, those groups are actually a lot better taken care off in the US than I thought, I more or less believed the die in the street thing on that issue. But it is the group of people who have jobs, but not very well paying jobs that get caught in the middle. Not enough money to get their own insurance and not little enough to get medicaid. This is a huge group and these are the real victims of the current system.I was in that group for a while. Lucky me, I experienced a damaged rotator cup (no medical attention) and experienced anaphylactic shock (emergency room treatment - instant thousands of dollars into debt). It was not fun.

Just to pick up on a few points here:

H&S:
EDIT: refuse those tests...when you push your right for medical self direction, the system will crumble before you. Stand up and let no one tell you what to do with your body, or that of anyone in your family. This is vital. Medical Self directions? Cobblers! If I want a wall built I get a brickie, if I want medical advice I go to the doctor. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't be informed, I am suggesting that throwing out the baby with the bathwater because someone who should know a whole lot better than you suggests what they percieve to be the best cause of action and you don't like anyone "telling" you what to do is very dangerous indeed.

Manus:
Hell I had chicken-pox about 4 times anyway, and my Grandfather had measles like 7 times, so anyone who tells you that you will always build an immunity to anything is lying or neive.With all due respect, either you're a medical miracle, or you're talking rubbish. If you are suggesting not having immunisations, then consider smallpox, polio, TB as well as a whole host of less serious though nevertheless dangerous illnesses like measles.

To talk about side effects, sure, some syptoms some times for some people. Better than possible death if you don't.

Laches:
I'm not going to requote the Guardian report, but having read it it does fail to compare different hospitals and health autorities within the UK, and the mortallity rates do vary enormously between health authorities. The main reason being that some areas are more affluent thus have healthier people anyway with a greater chance of surviving major surgery. In other words you could get the same disparity within the UK as there was between the two specific hospitals compared.

Joacqin:
Your point about birth control is interesting for the following reason: In the UK birth control is effectively free, you can get condoms free from the family planning clics, and the pill costs about £6 for 6 months supply (available on prescription from your doctor), YET we have the highest teen pregnancy rate in Western Europe. It certainly does not appear to be a function of cost.

Finally (Thank God I hear)

Chandos,

I would urge you not to listen to the people here who suggest "going your own way" in terms of medical treatment for your child. Freedom of choice is a meaningless phrase if you do not know enough about the choices you are asked to make. I've seen scant evidence to suggest that anyone here has meaningful medical knowledge to contribute.

As far as the overall systems go, I have to agree with the sentiment that if a large proportion of the population (from the numbers quoted above, some 20% of the US population) fall into the position of not being able to afford insurance, yet do not qualify for free treatment, then the US system fails. There needs to be a way to make the system more inclusive. The tax breaks suggested above might be the way, or perhaps mandatory for employers. I do not know enough about the system to suggest how to fix it, but it needs fixing. Although the UK NHS system is not by any means perfect with long waits for operations and the like, at least anyone requiring the operation will be able to get it without falling into crippling debt when already on low incomes.

Just my pennies worth.

Pennies is what it is Viking- just because you are ignorant (and I mean this only that you simply are unaware of what you are talking about, I'm not calling you stupid) to your own bodies functioning, health, and the medical system, does not mean everyone else is, allthough I admit, unfortunately in this lazy age, most are.

I come from a family with a high level of medical knowledge, several members have been to medical school, and also have experience with the mindset of the medical "profession," many have been nurses, from medicinal, to psychiatrical, to geriatric, most have a very high level of knowledge of anatomy and body chemistry and processesss and fuctioning, many have devoted their own precious time to take some thought for their children and look into all of these things in great detail, such as immunisations, medically prescribed chemicals and drugs, surgery procedures, personal allegies, and many of the over-looked details that can affect our health in adverse manners, such as the fact that if a child swallows a tube of toothpaste, they will die. Little things like anatomy and psychology are easy to pick up from anywhere, you should understand how you work, that way you know what to do if something goes wrong.

Now this may be because my family has a track record of susceptibilty to disease and disorder, (hence the chicken pox 4 times, I had it, I think I would remember - and I had all my imunisations too by the way, which I sincerly regret knowing the problems I had in my later life, which all research shows was very likely caused by such), so it has been necesaary for many of us to actually care about these things. We also know a great deal about "alternative" treatments, which work a lot better than the modern ones, I can tell you that from personal experience- from manipulaing the bodies energy system - like accupuncture- to plain common sense, like homeopathics and chiropractics, and using herbal remedies instead of chemical ones, and assessing what the personal impact of things are upon different people, to more outlandish knowledge of forms of healing that I have personally gained from my own experiences and knowledge.

Yeah I'm taking this personally, it is personal. If you look into these things yourself you may realize how much the wool has been pulled over your eyes. I can assure you, I, or any member of my family (and many others too by the look of things), knows a damn sight more than most of those corrupt doctors about our own health, and even the body. As it is, I am one of the healthiest people I know, and considering the disadvantages I have had, and have over-come, this is a big deal.

Oh, and if I wanted a wall built, I would do that myself too. I have.

Sorry, first of all, Herbal Remedies ARE CHEMICAL ONES. Just becasue they have not isolated the active ingredant does not make it not a drug. And since we do not konw all the interactions some herbal remedies can be very dangerous. Thousands have died over the past decade due to St. Johns Wort due to its now know tendency to either intensify or almost eliminate the effects of many drugs. Also, the US has the single worst infant mortality rate of ALL industrilized nations. Why.... because of crappy or non-existant health care. I don't claim to know what the answer is but I don't believe it rests with the , screw everybody else, just get me treated department. Drug costs are out of control because we are being ripped off by the drug companies. And to reply to the original post... why if its just a simple fever that has dropped should you charge ANY PERSON ON THE PLANET $850???????????? I can understand a guy coming in is a gushing wound but you talk like it is nothing..... its not the government throwing away money, that mother is concerned about her child and probably does not have a doctor because she can't afford it or they are not open on the weekends. The Hospital is the one ripping the government off if they charge that much for nothing. 5 minutes to say don't worry Ma'am your baby will be fine should not cost 850 and thats robbery if I ever heard it.

Jschild, I agree totally with your post in everything you have said except your reference to herbal remedies. This is a simple misunderstanding. Often (and probably most of the time in the US) a 'herbal remedy' may simply be an expoloitative chemical invention, a commercial rip-off, but when I say the phrase I refer to herbs, straight out of a garden, or from the specialist, being boiled in a pot or similar. And St. John's Wort won't affect any commercial drugs if you're not taking them :)

Manus, that adds up to the same thing. Just because you eat the actual leaves instead of taking it in pill form the active ingredients are the same. It is the chemicals in the herbs and plants that make them effective, the only difference between a herb/plant and "modern" medicine is that science has isolated the effective chemical in a herb and reproduced it in a synthetic way. Thus you dont get those other 200 different chemicals in the herb who no one really knows what they do.

Gotta go with Manus on this...I agree that modern medicine has progressed to where it can accomplish some truly remarkable things...the new life-saving surgical techniques are modern wonders, but as far as the elements that you use in your life to maintain, preserve and restore health...Medicine should only be a part. As viking said:
I would urge you not to listen to the people here who suggest "going your own way" in terms of medical treatment for your child. Freedom of choice is a meaningless phrase if you do not know enough about the choices you are asked to make. I would never advocate allowing a child to languish without necessary medical care...the key word being necessary. I do encourage everyone to doubt what the doctor tells you...many of the very maladies that we rush off to the doctor over, have already been exacerbated by the doctors fairly limited approach and general ignorance on matters such as nutrition. Medicine has it's uses, but it must be taken in careful, considered balanced doses.
Jschild, I do take exception to this:
Also, the US has the single worst infant mortality rate of ALL industrilized nations. Why.... because of crappy or non-existant health care. Not to pick at the crappy health care remark, but at the US infant mortality rate. The reason why the US has such a high infant mortality rate is because we have the highest rate of medical childbirth intervention...medication, epiduerals, epesiotomies, c-sections...you name it...we lead the world. With all of that medical might, there can be only two possible conclusions...either American women are low Constitution wimps or the Medical treatment of birth leads to it's own complications. Medicine has come to the outlook that birth is a sickness that needs to be treated by some sort of action...it needs to be intervened with. Also, medicine is afraid to not act...to not do something...in the event of possible litigation. Medicine needs to be able to tell the court of law that all reasonable actions were taken. As a result, in the US, those "reasonable" actions are taken with all women. Any "reasonable" action will carry some inherent risk, so the risks multiply, the odds pan out...voila...you have high rates of mortality and complication. This is one of most clear cut illustrations of the dangers of Medicine, and the tunnel vision employed in our care.

On the topic of Herbal medicines...I agree that they can be dangerous, but so is jumping off your roof. Herbal medicines can be as potent as synthetic drugs, and need to be handled with care.
Joacqin said,
science has isolated the effective chemical in a herb and reproduced it in a synthetic way. Thus you dont get those other 200 different chemicals in the herb who no one really knows what they do. Trust me, no one really knows what those synthetic chemicals will do to you either...except for in @ 20 years when the case studies are done! Your comment on pharmaceuticals being reproductions of naturally occuring chemicals is partly true...most of the new drugs have nothing to do with anything natural and would probably kill the poor little herb plant.

Oh well, I'm done. Going back to cave now.

Hacken Slash - you prove my point exactly, there have been no serious studies at all on the long term effects of "herbal" remedies - which I will state again ARE DRUGS. We know less about "Herbal" interactions than even normal "drugs". Some alternative medicines are effective, that I do not doubt and some herbals are effective but again, they unfortantly lack serious studies. And no one can doubt the effectivness of the vast majority of vacccines, but there are side effects that are well known. We need studies on these to determine which are bull**** and which are effective. Also what works for some doesn't work for all. For example, my father-in-law has had great success with Chiropractic procedures. I on the other hand, no no success with it at all. Why is that? We don't know. And we should.

Studies = $ = Medicine = Pharmaceuticals

Nowhere in this equation is herbal or alternative medicine, nor will it ever be. Exercise prudence in all things (including prudence :D ), and it will all work out.

Ummm. hate to dispute you HackenSlash, but the Herbal market is making billions around the world. They don't want it to be regulated. Why? Because the vast majority of them only work to a limited degree if at all. If there are studies that show they don't work, then people stop buying them. They don't want people to know they actually are drugs, and they don't want to be regulated. They even bought off the FDA to keep them from being regulated which they need to be.

I agree with you that herbalists and alternative medicine sources don't want to be regulated, but for other reasons than you state. They would be submitting to regulation by the very agency that doubts their effectiveness. There was a recent thread here about God and health that discussed that Medicine is starting to acknowlege a link between healing and faith...alternative medicine has long known that. They both use radically different approaches to healing, and to make the alternative health care field subject to the AMA would be similar to having one State religion. Not good for anyone in the long run.

If the Herbal / Alternative sphere is making billions around the globe...bully for them! It's still a drop in the bucket compared to the advertising costs of "Big Pharmaceuticals" newest stay hard / stay happy drug.
They even bought off the FDA to keep them from being regulated which they need to be. I think this statement is totally unsupportable. How could the herbal industry "buy off" the FDA? They don't have that kind of money...they're not doctors.

Again Jschild, you're confusing the (American) Market of these drugs, with the use of them. I am well aware that anything that seems like a good idea will be copied and indescriminately used (read, abused) by charlatans - but this does not mean that the thing in itself is bad. Also, 'those other 200 different chemicals in the herb who no one really knows what they do' are probably what's keeping that thing from killing you, let alone the fact that, as Hacken Slash stated, the chemical is not in such a concentrated isolated form. Hacken Slash is right in everything he said, if you exercise due caution and thoughtfulness then you will be ok. There have been tests on these things by the way, both by modern-day groups, and the ones that were using them for the past thousands of years - and herbal medicine is only part of the answer.

Edit: You tell 'em Hacken Slash! Honestly, those who think we are wrong should listen to those medical doctors and big drug companies belly-aching about the 'alternative' sphere, complaining and saying how bad they are, until they get proved right and then who do you think is the first to jump on the band-wagon? That's right, the very people who made so much fun of them are real quick to change their tone when they think they can make a buck. They just don't like the competition.

HS - The FDA is largely a government agency and, as we've seen with the FCC, it is a politcal agency, and servant of the admistration. Thus, donations that are put into the coffers of elected officals by the drug companies are really just another way of buying them off. Or so some believe.

We're really on the same page, Chandos. I wasn't expressing doubt that a govt agency could be bought off...they can. I was just expressing doubt that the huge and powerful Alternative Medicine lobby and PAC group was capable of doing it.

Getting back to your original post that started this thread, I agree that we have a problem. I don't think it can be blamed on either Conservative or Liberal politics, but needs to be addressed by both sides. It's been "broke" and getting "broker" under two different administrations, so I think we transcend party lines.

Just a final thought...every time you see those $'s deducted from your paycheck for health insurance...everytime you pay an obscene medical bill...everytime the hospital charges you $9.68 for a Band-aid...You are helping to pay for the illegal alien who required medical care here, before he was sent back home.

There is no easy answer.

I would have to say that you Manus and Hacken Slash sounds extremely naive, so just because the big pharmaceutical companies use the system to squeese every last buck out of it with little or no concern for their customers/patients that makes herbal medicines and alternative treatments heaven on earth and better from a medical point of view?
The main effect of most such herbal remedies is the simple plaecbo effect experienced by a lot of people just because they have the same views you have. I actually have more trust in the big evil pharmaceutical companies than alternative cures even if those companies are moneygrubbing bastards because they are under scrutiny, they are regulated, they have to submit to tests and checks. Then that they overprice their stuff is a whole other matter.

Joacqin that wasn't our point at all, and you know it. That is so far from what we were saying I am led to believe that you would rather attempt to ridicule those you do not agree with than consider their assertations.

Actually, I was highly doubtful of many of these things until I found they worked so well. Besides, you're contradicting yourself now. First you say that herbs contain the same drugs in the chemical pharmaceuticals, and many more you say you are fearful of, then you say they don't have have any related affect to these compounds at all. You're grasping at straws.

Go to China for a while - they have tested and formulated these things for millenea, the proof is right in front of your eyes if you are willing to look for it. The West has too, but have forgotten most of it.

I am much more willing to trust the tests and experience of a family friend who has spent their life working with these things than a huge corporation with ties to the government who benefits most in their discreditation, and has displayed their lack of scruples, and their unwilingness to learn the truth about the world around them.

I can tell you something else, I am certain you will doubt it, but I defy you to provide another explanation. It has nothing to do with natural remedies as we have so far discussed however (yet is related to healthcare), so I'm not going to post it here unless I get the go-ahead.

Edit: I can't believe I fell for that. Look joacqin, even if you were right in your second take on natural remedies - which you are not - I wouldn't care in the slightest. I'd rather go out in the garden and munch on a couple of leaves, and be totally cured, using only the power of my mind, then any of those other methods. I defy anyone to disgree with this. Any way you look at it, as far as I'm concerned now, this is a moot point. What possible reason do you have to object? Either the chemicals are there (and they work even better if you analyze the long case history of these things, longer and further documented than modern medicine), or they're not (why on earth you tried to say this I don't know) and they still work, minus any other damaging concerns -a very real concern with pharmeceutical drugs.

So what is your objection now? I'm sure someone has one.

[ November 10, 2003, 16:32: Message edited by: Manus ]

That was part of my old point. You seemed to think that that be basis for herbal remedies and "scientific" remedies was somehow different. I said that they werent, that they all were efficient due to one chemical or another, if they are efficent at all. My main point was that I prefer and trust the medicines from the evil corporations simply because they are under scrutiny and have to tests their substances thoroughly. Many many "alternative" treatments has been submitted to such scrutiny and passed and are now embraced by the medical community, do you reject for instance acupuncture just because it has been widely accepted by the scientific and medical community? I have nothing against alternative treatments but I think it is heedless to submit to them before they have been tested properly and not trust on hearsay.

You have one point though, it doesnt matter how or why you get better if you are getting healthy. If that is due to a placebo effect it doesnt matter one whit as long as you are healthy. I tend to prefer medicines that work whether I believe in them or not though, even if I prefer to believe in them as they tend to work better then, alternative or not.

Btw, according to the FDA, the miniscule herbal market made 19 BILLION in the US alone.... stop portraying it as a tiny market that cannot affect the FDA because they spent tons of money to keep it unregulated a few years ago. The FDA only just recently insisted that they control the amount of product so that the dosage is consistant.

Well joacqin, agreed then. If the effects of these products have not been proved to you, then by all means wait until they are. My life differes from this however, as not only do I have faith in the efficiency of these means, but I try to have as little as possible to do with the government or commercial corporations, or any other large body, as this is the way my own beliefs and ethics take me. Nevertheless, I do understand your hesitancy, I only feel you should look into these things further as I am equally wary of the dangers I see in these other areas as you are of the one I have chosen.

Jschild, I don't know, as I don't live in America. But I think you are confusing the thing in itself, with one possible method of obtaining similar products. I'm probably almost as opposed to this corporation as any other due to what is required of someone to be involved in such a thing. I put more faith in them however, than another, solely because I value (some) of their product.

Which brings me back to the point Hacken Slash has brought up. There is no definate party at blame for this - so I blame everyone. It is the mindset of all the people involved in this system which leads to such problems. The doctors who charge so much, the companies which reneg on their word, the governments which support them, the people who abuse a situation, the people that have led those others to believe that they had little other choice. All we can do is try to do the best we can, if that means pulling away, then that is what we should do. If we can handle things for ourselves, and convince others to do the same, I think the system as we know it will collapse (with no-one to support it) and thus the only things that may arise or survive are those in alignment with the way of thinking which we have all ourselves decreed, and live within.

Is there anyone here who does support this current system- from it's face to its roots, or any part in-between?

@jschild...Can you provide any proof of the 19 billion dollar claim that you have made. I do find it hard to believe, but will look at any evidence you can provide.

Here you go, plus the article talks about why you don't want to get the kava supplement anymore, the figure listed is for 2002, sales in 2003 have been reported to top 19 billion

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/2935103.htm