I just finished Why Our Health Matters by Andrew Weil, MD, another treatise on the failure of the American health care system and what we, as a nation, can do about it.
Unlike the authors of What If Medicine Disappeared, Weil is in fact a trained physician. In contrast to so many of his colleagues, Weil explains at length, he rejected the normal medical school curriculum which emphasized treating the symptoms of disease with drugs and went looking for a way to treat the cause of disease instead, something his medical school instructors frowned upon.
Much of what Weil says echoes all the other books I’ve read about what’s wrong with our profit driven system. The pharmaceutical companies rule the roost, providing poorly constructed studies as proof their drugs work miracles. They spend more money on advertising to both doctors and patients than they do on research and development. The idea of the industry is to make people sick, keep them sick and continue to profit from them.
Preaching to the choir here. Overall I agree with Weil’s assessment that change has to come from the people and we have to take a more active role in managing our own health, at the same time the government makes sweeping changes into how health care is managed and provided.
My only disagreement with Weil is his occasional lapse in heavy handed measures such as ‘forcing’ citizens to pay more attention to their health by imposing ‘sin’ taxes or penalties for non-compliance. This is where he veers off his otherwise straight and narrow track and dips into ludicrous by forgetting that as Americans we fought for our freedom not to have our every move regulated by the government. He also fails to realize that by imposing penalties for not being healthy, he will in fact be punishing the most law abiding of us. Those who truly abuse the health care system and those who cost the most money will still do as they please regardless of what penalties are imposed on them, while those who, like today, struggle to play by the rules, will be the ones facing the full impact of the penalties. Tsk tsk, Dr. Weil. He seems to be a margin too full of his own shiny dream of perfect health care to see the forest for the trees.
Once again, all this information is interesting and oftentimes shocking, but my question is, has anyone sent a copy of this book to the President? The people who really need to understand how to effect change are the ones who are least likely to do it, because they remain the ones with the most profit to lose if we become a nation of truly healthy people.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Professional Parenting 101
There’s a reason I don’t read women’s magazines. Most of the articles, meant to give women helpful hints on how to better run their lives, make me want to slap someone.
Case in point [and it’s my own fault for borrowing my mother’s copy of the September issue of Family Circle] an article called 'Head of the Class' by Gary Norton Edelman. The article is set up as an advice column for parents who are worried about issues facing their teen and tween age children.
It sounds great in theory. As a parent of a teen and a tween, I am, on occasion, at my wits end. Life was often simpler when the worry of the day was whether or not I had the right flavor of yogurt on hand to stave off a tantrum or if they could figure out how to open their own juice boxes. I think the parents whose questions are addressed in this article, though, have much bigger problems than I ever did, chief among them that they have entirely too much time on their hands and are buying into the idea that every single thing that happens in a child’s life has the potential to scar them for life.
In the first question, a parent asked what she can do to help her child adjust to middle school. This might be a legitimate question if the kid had actually started middle school already and was having problems adjusting, but he hasn’t. So why worry about something that might not be an issue? The parent is fretting that her son will be lost and intimidated, when the possibility exists that the kid will do just great. Nevertheless, she needs professional intervention to deal with his ‘problem.’
Another parent worries because her son doesn’t like to wear a coat. Hmm…I never met a kid who did like to wear a coat. The struggle is age old. What will happen if my child catches a chill? How can I make him dress appropriately? The answer? [Well, my answer anyway,] don’t try. If the kid is older than four, let him go. When he realizes he’s freezing, he’ll start wearing a coat. He’ll never know what being cold feels like if you have a hissy fit and bundle him up in a parka every time he leaves the house.
Yet another parent laments that her children who enjoyed a great summer together will be going to different schools in the fall and won’t get to spend so much time together. What can she possibly do to preserve the closeness they had for those three glorious months? My answer: get a life, sweetheart. Your kids won’t always be close to one another, then again they might be. The older they get, the less it’s up to you how they spend their time, who they spend it with and if they actually like hanging out with their siblings. Deal with it.
My favorite question is from a concerned mom whose son ‘almost missed his bus because he didn’t speak up.’ She needs professional help on how to deal with his passive nature. I have a feeling the kid didn’t speak up because he’s too used to having Mom do it for him.
Stuff like this makes me wonder how anyone survives to adulthood these days. If you can’t ask a parenting expert how to deal with every hiccup your child encounters, how on earth do you raise them properly?
I think what we need are less experts in parenting and more parents who are experts in how to raise their own kids.
Case in point [and it’s my own fault for borrowing my mother’s copy of the September issue of Family Circle] an article called 'Head of the Class' by Gary Norton Edelman. The article is set up as an advice column for parents who are worried about issues facing their teen and tween age children.
It sounds great in theory. As a parent of a teen and a tween, I am, on occasion, at my wits end. Life was often simpler when the worry of the day was whether or not I had the right flavor of yogurt on hand to stave off a tantrum or if they could figure out how to open their own juice boxes. I think the parents whose questions are addressed in this article, though, have much bigger problems than I ever did, chief among them that they have entirely too much time on their hands and are buying into the idea that every single thing that happens in a child’s life has the potential to scar them for life.
In the first question, a parent asked what she can do to help her child adjust to middle school. This might be a legitimate question if the kid had actually started middle school already and was having problems adjusting, but he hasn’t. So why worry about something that might not be an issue? The parent is fretting that her son will be lost and intimidated, when the possibility exists that the kid will do just great. Nevertheless, she needs professional intervention to deal with his ‘problem.’
Another parent worries because her son doesn’t like to wear a coat. Hmm…I never met a kid who did like to wear a coat. The struggle is age old. What will happen if my child catches a chill? How can I make him dress appropriately? The answer? [Well, my answer anyway,] don’t try. If the kid is older than four, let him go. When he realizes he’s freezing, he’ll start wearing a coat. He’ll never know what being cold feels like if you have a hissy fit and bundle him up in a parka every time he leaves the house.
Yet another parent laments that her children who enjoyed a great summer together will be going to different schools in the fall and won’t get to spend so much time together. What can she possibly do to preserve the closeness they had for those three glorious months? My answer: get a life, sweetheart. Your kids won’t always be close to one another, then again they might be. The older they get, the less it’s up to you how they spend their time, who they spend it with and if they actually like hanging out with their siblings. Deal with it.
My favorite question is from a concerned mom whose son ‘almost missed his bus because he didn’t speak up.’ She needs professional help on how to deal with his passive nature. I have a feeling the kid didn’t speak up because he’s too used to having Mom do it for him.
Stuff like this makes me wonder how anyone survives to adulthood these days. If you can’t ask a parenting expert how to deal with every hiccup your child encounters, how on earth do you raise them properly?
I think what we need are less experts in parenting and more parents who are experts in how to raise their own kids.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
The Case Against Medicine
I know, I’ve been gone a while. Life’s been busy and as far as medical and other WTFery, I sometimes get weary of writing about all the ludicrousness I come across.
Having spent a good portion of the last six months not in cyberspace, I can’t say I miss it, but I do miss talking about topics that interest me.
I just finished reading What if Medicine Disappeared by Gerald E. Markle and Frances B. McCrea. Markle and McCrea are professors of sociology, not medical doctors, which I haven’t yet decided if that helps or hurts their credibility in the field of discussing how the disappearance of the medical profession [generally doctors, surgeons, specialists, pharmaceuticals and hospitals] would effect the morbidity and mortality of the world’s population. They conduct ‘thought’ experiments based on this hypothesis, which is to say they ‘think’ about how things would be, though their discussions of the subject are backed up with interesting facts and figures taken directly from articles published in all the premier medical journals such as JAMA and the Lancet to name a few.
I find it interesting that they use medical studies to prove their points that various aspects of our medical profession are overrated, overpriced and under-efficient. That’s not really news, is it?
Overall I found the book, a rather quick read, to be interesting and thought provoking, especially that one of their main conclusions was that if tobacco products disappeared, the effect on life and health in our nation [and very likely the world] would be far more profound that if doctors disappeared. Meaning far more lives could be saved by the removal of a toxic substance that permeates our society, than would be lost by the removal of those dedicated to healing.
My only complaint about the book is the style is a bit too conversational. Theories are presented interspersed with narrative about the authors eating dinner, raking leaves and watching the flora and fauna around their home as if they were attempting to novelize their story. Without those useless asides, I think the book would have been an even quicker and more informative read.
Overall, despite the mistrust with which I hold the medical profession these days, I can’t say I’d like to see the outcome of a society without doctors, trauma surgeons and emergency rooms. A far more interesting thought experiment would be to imagine the impact on our world if pharmaceutical company stockholders, medical insurance companies and politicians disappeared. I’m sure we’d all lead much happier and healthier lives then.
Having spent a good portion of the last six months not in cyberspace, I can’t say I miss it, but I do miss talking about topics that interest me.
I just finished reading What if Medicine Disappeared by Gerald E. Markle and Frances B. McCrea. Markle and McCrea are professors of sociology, not medical doctors, which I haven’t yet decided if that helps or hurts their credibility in the field of discussing how the disappearance of the medical profession [generally doctors, surgeons, specialists, pharmaceuticals and hospitals] would effect the morbidity and mortality of the world’s population. They conduct ‘thought’ experiments based on this hypothesis, which is to say they ‘think’ about how things would be, though their discussions of the subject are backed up with interesting facts and figures taken directly from articles published in all the premier medical journals such as JAMA and the Lancet to name a few.
I find it interesting that they use medical studies to prove their points that various aspects of our medical profession are overrated, overpriced and under-efficient. That’s not really news, is it?
Overall I found the book, a rather quick read, to be interesting and thought provoking, especially that one of their main conclusions was that if tobacco products disappeared, the effect on life and health in our nation [and very likely the world] would be far more profound that if doctors disappeared. Meaning far more lives could be saved by the removal of a toxic substance that permeates our society, than would be lost by the removal of those dedicated to healing.
My only complaint about the book is the style is a bit too conversational. Theories are presented interspersed with narrative about the authors eating dinner, raking leaves and watching the flora and fauna around their home as if they were attempting to novelize their story. Without those useless asides, I think the book would have been an even quicker and more informative read.
Overall, despite the mistrust with which I hold the medical profession these days, I can’t say I’d like to see the outcome of a society without doctors, trauma surgeons and emergency rooms. A far more interesting thought experiment would be to imagine the impact on our world if pharmaceutical company stockholders, medical insurance companies and politicians disappeared. I’m sure we’d all lead much happier and healthier lives then.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
FICO be damned
I know it might be considered financially unsound in this wacky economic climate to cancel a credit card. Any financial 'expert' will tell you that cancelling cards will have a negative effect on your FICO score - that all important made up number that tells everyone just what a high risk you are in the money game.
Everyone knows my policy is, whatever the banks want or prefer, is usually exactly the opposite of what I do, so today I cancelled a card, but I didn't do it just to piss off the FICO people who will now be forced to recalculate my score [if only they cared that much.]
I did it to make myself feel just a little bit better. Today I cancelled my BP credit card. You might think - so what? What's one lost credit card account to them? Probably nothing in the overall scheme of things, but it made me feel good nevertheless to let them know my family won't be doing business with a company that's singlehandedly destroying the planet.
The millions of gallons of oil bursting into the Gulf of Mexico are going to have an untold impact on the environment. BP is rushing around putting toxic Band-Aids on a gaping wound. What they need to do is pour all of their money, every last penny, into that spewing well, and then throw their Top brass in after it.
Unfortunately, it's not just BP who's to blame. We can also thank the world governments [not just the US.] Their sick insistance that we need to remain dependent on oil is what really caused this catastrophe. The fear of making the OPEC nations angry by taking away the only thing they truly contribute to the global community is at the root of this unspeakable tragedy. We have the technology to become an oil-free society, we just don't use it because it means people who have enough money to feed filet mignon to their pet tigers won't be happy.
Clean energy is available. Environmentally safe energy is available, it just doesn't put enough money in the right pockets to make it profitable.
I know there's a lot more I could do to take a stand against BIG OIL, in the mean time, why not start out in the simplest way possible? Send a message to BP - if you deal with them, stop. They don't need any more of our money or any of our support.
Everyone knows my policy is, whatever the banks want or prefer, is usually exactly the opposite of what I do, so today I cancelled a card, but I didn't do it just to piss off the FICO people who will now be forced to recalculate my score [if only they cared that much.]
I did it to make myself feel just a little bit better. Today I cancelled my BP credit card. You might think - so what? What's one lost credit card account to them? Probably nothing in the overall scheme of things, but it made me feel good nevertheless to let them know my family won't be doing business with a company that's singlehandedly destroying the planet.
The millions of gallons of oil bursting into the Gulf of Mexico are going to have an untold impact on the environment. BP is rushing around putting toxic Band-Aids on a gaping wound. What they need to do is pour all of their money, every last penny, into that spewing well, and then throw their Top brass in after it.
Unfortunately, it's not just BP who's to blame. We can also thank the world governments [not just the US.] Their sick insistance that we need to remain dependent on oil is what really caused this catastrophe. The fear of making the OPEC nations angry by taking away the only thing they truly contribute to the global community is at the root of this unspeakable tragedy. We have the technology to become an oil-free society, we just don't use it because it means people who have enough money to feed filet mignon to their pet tigers won't be happy.
Clean energy is available. Environmentally safe energy is available, it just doesn't put enough money in the right pockets to make it profitable.
I know there's a lot more I could do to take a stand against BIG OIL, in the mean time, why not start out in the simplest way possible? Send a message to BP - if you deal with them, stop. They don't need any more of our money or any of our support.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Collected WTFery
I’ve been too deeply immersed in preparing to move to blog on a regular basis, but I have collected a couple of interesting tidbits to share.
The first entry in the WTF column comes directly from TD Bank [aka America’s Most Convenient Bank]. I don’t want to cast aspersions on any one financial institution, since I have an inkling they’ll all be doing this soon, but I can only speak for certain about TD Bank.
My husband and I both received a little flier from them the other day informing us that as of January 2009 [yes, that’s more than a year ago, but they’re just telling us now] “if you received more than $600 in ATM Surcharge Reimbursements you will be sent a 1099-Misc form.”
Translated into plain English this means: You know all those times we happily reimbursed you for the exorbitant fees we and other banks charge you to access your money from ATMs? Well, now you have to pay taxes on it.
Essentially, they take your money, they give it back and they charge you a tax on it. So money you should never have had to pay out in the first place, is now considered income.
What I really love is how it’s retroactive to 2009, meaning that if you’ve already paid your 2009 taxes [and let’s see – most of us have], you may have to make an adjustment once they get that 1099 out to you.
The next entry comes from my favorite source, health and wellness news.
Apparently The Journal of Urology is touting diet soda as a preventative for kidney stones. Researchers have concluded that citrate, an ingredient found in some sodas [lemon and citrus flavors], may help reduce the risk of kidney stone formation. Citrate can be found in non-diet sodas as well [not colas, though] but the researchers, ever health conscious, are quick to remind patients that the extra calories they get from regular sodas pose a health risk [obviously one more serious than cancer causing artificial sweeteners, but we won’t go there.]
What boggles me is, why would doctors decide that diet soda would be a better, healthier source of citrate than say, actual citrus fruits? Oh, right, fruits contain sugar and calories, therefore making them bad for you, where artificially sweetened and colored carbonated water contains no sugar or calories and is therefore a health food.
So, there you go. You can drink to your health, while you write out that check to Uncle Sam to pay taxes on your ATM rebates.
The first entry in the WTF column comes directly from TD Bank [aka America’s Most Convenient Bank]. I don’t want to cast aspersions on any one financial institution, since I have an inkling they’ll all be doing this soon, but I can only speak for certain about TD Bank.
My husband and I both received a little flier from them the other day informing us that as of January 2009 [yes, that’s more than a year ago, but they’re just telling us now] “if you received more than $600 in ATM Surcharge Reimbursements you will be sent a 1099-Misc form.”
Translated into plain English this means: You know all those times we happily reimbursed you for the exorbitant fees we and other banks charge you to access your money from ATMs? Well, now you have to pay taxes on it.
Essentially, they take your money, they give it back and they charge you a tax on it. So money you should never have had to pay out in the first place, is now considered income.
What I really love is how it’s retroactive to 2009, meaning that if you’ve already paid your 2009 taxes [and let’s see – most of us have], you may have to make an adjustment once they get that 1099 out to you.
The next entry comes from my favorite source, health and wellness news.
Apparently The Journal of Urology is touting diet soda as a preventative for kidney stones. Researchers have concluded that citrate, an ingredient found in some sodas [lemon and citrus flavors], may help reduce the risk of kidney stone formation. Citrate can be found in non-diet sodas as well [not colas, though] but the researchers, ever health conscious, are quick to remind patients that the extra calories they get from regular sodas pose a health risk [obviously one more serious than cancer causing artificial sweeteners, but we won’t go there.]
What boggles me is, why would doctors decide that diet soda would be a better, healthier source of citrate than say, actual citrus fruits? Oh, right, fruits contain sugar and calories, therefore making them bad for you, where artificially sweetened and colored carbonated water contains no sugar or calories and is therefore a health food.
So, there you go. You can drink to your health, while you write out that check to Uncle Sam to pay taxes on your ATM rebates.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Dieting flip flops
No, this post isn't about shoes that help you lose weight - though I'm told they do exist.
This about another dieting myth busted - or a new dieting myth created, I'm not sure which.
According to this article posted at MSNBC.com the long-held belief that slow and steady weight loss is best, is just a bunch of hooey. Then again, aren't most weight loss tricks and tips just hooey?
Turns out researchers at the University of Florida have conducted a study which shows [or perhaps has been made to show?] that women who lose weight faster will have a greater chance of keeping the weight off than those who lose weight more slowly.
I guess this is great news for all the quick start diet programs, you know, the ones that doctors have been telling us for years are no good because quick loss cannot be sustained?
Of course the lead researcher of the study declines to say for sure whether the study is actually conclusive. I wonder if perhaps women who lose weight faster are more likely to keep the weight off because they've had greater success and are therefore more committed to weight loss than those who have lost weight more slowly. Is this a true scientific cause for more sustainable weight loss, or just a flimsy cause and effect experiment disguised as a research study?
I guess we'll never know, but I can bet we'll see an increase in 'quick start' weight loss programs based on this study.
This about another dieting myth busted - or a new dieting myth created, I'm not sure which.
According to this article posted at MSNBC.com the long-held belief that slow and steady weight loss is best, is just a bunch of hooey. Then again, aren't most weight loss tricks and tips just hooey?
Turns out researchers at the University of Florida have conducted a study which shows [or perhaps has been made to show?] that women who lose weight faster will have a greater chance of keeping the weight off than those who lose weight more slowly.
I guess this is great news for all the quick start diet programs, you know, the ones that doctors have been telling us for years are no good because quick loss cannot be sustained?
Of course the lead researcher of the study declines to say for sure whether the study is actually conclusive. I wonder if perhaps women who lose weight faster are more likely to keep the weight off because they've had greater success and are therefore more committed to weight loss than those who have lost weight more slowly. Is this a true scientific cause for more sustainable weight loss, or just a flimsy cause and effect experiment disguised as a research study?
I guess we'll never know, but I can bet we'll see an increase in 'quick start' weight loss programs based on this study.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Feeling old? Take a pill.
People have been searching for the Fountain of Youth for centuries – and ultimately, what they've discovered so far is, you can’t really stay young or stop aging, but now scientists are trying to find a way to make people live longer by mimicking what they call the ‘longevity gene’.
This article from Reuters talks about the pharmaceutical industry’s push to develop a drug that will help people live longer. Scientists are studying centenarians around the world to figure out what in their genetic makeup has contributed to such long lives.
Clearly, as I think the article implies, long life is a factor of luck, having the right genes will help you live longer – of course coupled with a healthy diet and lifestyle. I find it interesting that the ‘answer’ to helping people live longer, healthier lives is automatically thought to be found in drugs. We can make a pill for that!
I have to admit, I find centenarians to be fascinating. What I’ve noticed about those 100-year-olds who appear in the news is that a good portion of them [well, okay, all] – have lived through world wars, many have even served in them. This certainly doesn’t equate to the safe environment the article cites as a factor in long life. Many of these people have held difficult or tedious jobs, they’ve existed at the poverty level in some cases, they’ve raised children and navigated our stressful society or even those deemed more stressful and managed to survive. So how do they really do it? Is it just luck? Good genes, good timing, good life choices? Or is it something the rest of us can really hope to emulate without having to fork over our Medicare Part D dollars for the ‘longevity pill?’
I wish the scientists would take a break from trying to develop new drugs and start really looking at longevity as something inherent in the human condition – something we can all achieve if we know how, not just if our (mandatory) health insurance covers it.
This article from Reuters talks about the pharmaceutical industry’s push to develop a drug that will help people live longer. Scientists are studying centenarians around the world to figure out what in their genetic makeup has contributed to such long lives.
Clearly, as I think the article implies, long life is a factor of luck, having the right genes will help you live longer – of course coupled with a healthy diet and lifestyle. I find it interesting that the ‘answer’ to helping people live longer, healthier lives is automatically thought to be found in drugs. We can make a pill for that!
I have to admit, I find centenarians to be fascinating. What I’ve noticed about those 100-year-olds who appear in the news is that a good portion of them [well, okay, all] – have lived through world wars, many have even served in them. This certainly doesn’t equate to the safe environment the article cites as a factor in long life. Many of these people have held difficult or tedious jobs, they’ve existed at the poverty level in some cases, they’ve raised children and navigated our stressful society or even those deemed more stressful and managed to survive. So how do they really do it? Is it just luck? Good genes, good timing, good life choices? Or is it something the rest of us can really hope to emulate without having to fork over our Medicare Part D dollars for the ‘longevity pill?’
I wish the scientists would take a break from trying to develop new drugs and start really looking at longevity as something inherent in the human condition – something we can all achieve if we know how, not just if our (mandatory) health insurance covers it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
