http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...my-health.htmlIf you are anything like me, you have spent the last 10 days listening to President Barack Obama and his Republican challengers accuse each other of being the meanest miser when it comes to denying health care to seniors. Unless you are an actuary or have a fondness for, and facility with, budget math, you were probably left wondering what and whom to believe.
That’s the good news. The bad news is, nothing that has been enacted (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010) or proposed (Republican Representative Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity”) addresses the fundamental problem plaguing the U.S. health-care system: It is designed to manage disease rather than promote wellness.
"manage disease rather than promote wellness"
sick-care system, esp Big Pharma, doesn't get paid for curing disease, it gets paid for return, preferably life-long visits, and for sickos taking BigPharma crap, much of which does nothing, for fake diseases, and does harm that requires more BigPharma crap to counter side effects.
Quite a naive Bloomberg writer to say the $2.5T sick-care business should stop sickness!"It's A Business"
don't guess you read the damn article. there are outcome based pilot programs already in existence.
it would be naive to predict her proposed paradigm will be adopted, but not at all to suggest it as a possible solution.
pilot programs? in a $2.5T/year system?
get back to us in the decade any system-wide change is made in reducing costs AND improving outcomes.
ACA penalizes hospitals for high rates of re-admittance, etc, etc.
It's a huge wealth-sucking system, and it's HUGELY resistant to having its wealth (aka out costs) reduced.
ACA reduces payments to for-profit providers (not reducing care) while Ryan's cruel budget makes (impoverished) seniors pay more while protecting income for providers. AKA, there's a real choice between Obama and Gecko.
you go for the Democrat's vaporware. give yourself a gold star.
oh wait, you already did.
nation-wide ACA is better, more than a pilot program in getting, eg, hospitals to reduce their readmission rates.
The justification for the rule is that many hospitals have horrible readmission rates vs the average. Now it will cost them where it really hurts, in their bank account.
Terrible article.
Hospitals and physicians do "promote wellness" but they cannot save people from themselves. The obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease epidemic is not unique to this country. Changing people's views on diet & lifestyle is beyond the control of the healthcare system.
She also fails to mention the aging demographics of our country that are and will continue to increase healthcare costs. That too is not something the healthcare system can change.
Then she list hospital error and hospital borne infection as the 3rd leading cause of death but her own link to back that statement up lists chronic lower respiratory disease as 3rd. Smoking is the leading cause of chronic lower respiratory disease not our healthcare system. Hospital borne infections are often used as an indictment of our healthcare system but statistically we are inline with most every other healthcare system. They are labeled a "preventable" illness yet no healthcare system in the world has been able to prevent them.
Her grand conclusion
No lady.Health care is a complicated subject
it's an op-ed not a white paper. pivoting from treatment to wellness and prevention doesn't seem like such a horrible idea to me.
Wellness and prevention requires effort on our part and we're not interested in effort on our part. Let us eat/drink/smoke/sit on the couch as much as we want and just give us the pill that will allow us to avoid the health consequences of our actions.
It's a great idea but not really within the control of healthcare professionals. My wife spends everyday with people who need to make changes to their lifestyle but when she brings up diet to the overweight person most of them literally roll their eyes at her. So she treats their self inflicted chronic illnesses with drugs, what else can she do?
She has taken to recommending this movie to her patients...
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/70...vieid=70185045
A very small number of people have followed the diet and have seen dramatic positive changes in their health but most won't even consider taking responsibility for their own health.
Thanks. Added to instant queue.
Sure. I hope you give it a try. The difference in how you feel is amazing and it is really pretty easy to switch. Unlike "diets" you don't limit how much you eat just what you eat, so you never go hungry.
This is Dr. Esselstyn's son's site which is good for more info/recipe's etc.
http://engine2diet.com/28-day-challenge/welcome-video/
ugh, that wouldn't work for me.
Why is that?
Because no meat, no milk, lotsa veggies... just wouldn't work for me. I can see how it would work for people that are hungry all the time, that's just not me.
I've actually lost 15+ pounds by just avoiding High-fructose corn syrup... it's pretty crazy.
Before coming to this country about a dozen years ago, my weight was always about 150 pounds, pretty skinny guy, and my diet was meat, milk, soda, etc... just moderate portions. But here even if you eat moderately, the food just fatten you the up. There's high-fructose corn syrup on almost everything (Soda back in south america is made with cane sugar).
I got to 235 and just said enough with this . I'm under 220 now and still going down, but goddamn you have to look at what you eat.
It doesn't require that you eat alot. For breakfast I had 2 slices of whole wheat toast w/jalapeno hummus spread, lunch was my version of "Rip's Big Bowl' cereal from the site, and dinner was an awesome meatless/cheeseless veggie lasagna I made.
I'm not trying to convince you, just sayin.
I think it's possible to avoid health problems without completely eliminating meat, eggs, dairy, processed oils & sugars from your diet if you eat them in moderation but for most people moderation means every single meal of their lives.
Your reaction though is typical of what my wife gets from her patients...no way! And these are people with serious chronic disease. So they get to pop pills and complain that doctors don't cure them of themselves.
That's great but don't fool yourself into thinking cane sugar is "healthier". The research is becoming pretty clear that they have the same effects on your health. The difference is, as you found, corn syrup is in everything. So people are consuming far more of it. It amazes me when I read the ingredients on things in the grocery store. Half of the time I'm wondering "why the would they put it in this?".
I get you. Just a sampler why that wouldn't work for me:
1) don't like y food (jalapeño)
2) don't like hummus spread
3) don't like nuts on their own
4) don't like milk subs utes (I already drink 2% which is the closest to me that actually resembles milk)
5) don't like lasagna
Well, I've seen that first hand. My family (knock on wood) has always been pretty healthy. No obesity, no diabetes, no health problems in general either, most of those that passed away were 80+ years old.
But it's more than just diet, it's also cultural. From the size of the plates (my wife was shocked with the smallish size of the plates everywhere down south
Well, this is all new to me, tbh... I don't really mind eating less if I have to (I don't eat much in general and sometimes skip meals entirely), or avoiding certain types of junk like snacks or high fat meat. But you're going to have to pry the filet mignon from my cold dead hands, tbh...
But that's the thing. You don't find cane sugar in freaking everything down there. It's just crazy over here with that stuff.
I'm sorry. I don't care what research says about corn sugar vs. high fructose corn syrup. There is a difference in how it's metabolized. I would suggest that these researchers might be getting paid to make such claims.
Ask Scott how different types of sugar metabolize in a beer making process. Not saying it's the same for the body, but that there are difference. Don't expect the body to treat them the same. Yeast doesn't.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 08-24-2012 at 11:15 PM.
nevermind
The last time I ate meat was two weeks ago tomorrow. It was fillet mignon with king crab legs and it was delicious.
Tomorrow is eat what you want day again for us (every other saturday)..moderation.
That's the key... and discipline too...The last time I ate meat was two weeks ago tomorrow. It was fillet mignon with king crab legs and it was delicious
Tomorrow is eat what you want day again for us (every other saturday)..moderation.
Well first, I think corn sugar and hfcs is the same thing. Did you mean cane sugar?
I didn't say there were no differences between the two. There are some differences between how hfcs and cane sugar are metabolized. The only point I was making to El Nono is that a diets high in corn syrup or cane sugar are equally unhealthy. It is the amount of sugar consumed that is most important healthwise. So drinking 5 cane sugar sodas instead of 5 corn syrup sodas is not healthier.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
