Health Quackery Roundup

[Panzermann]

Practice Fusion agreed to pay $145 million to resolve civil and criminal cases, according to documents filed in a Vermont federal court. Practice Fusion admitted to the scheme with an unnamed opioid maker, though the details of the government case closely match a public research partnership between Practice Fusion and Purdue Pharma Inc., which makes OxyContin.

 

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-29/health-records-company-pushed-opioids-to-doctors-in-secret-deal

 

 

Trust the computer they said...

[GregShaw]

Fun facts about lead exposure at indoor gun ranges. I take a ton of vitamin c before I go shooting.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5379568/

The two times a year I shoot indoors isn't enough to worry about. The 300 lbs of lead I cast into boolits each year I don't worry about either.

[Panzermann]

 

Fun facts about lead exposure at indoor gun ranges. I take a ton of vitamin c before I go shooting.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5379568/

The two times a year I shoot indoors isn't enough to worry about. The 300 lbs of lead I cast into boolits each year I don't worry about either.

 

 

when you melt and cast the lead with good ventilation and a mask and do not lick your hands, you should be fine.

[Skywalkre]

I was positive I posted this before but can't find it. Quick, but depressing read, about how it's harder to be thin compared to thirty years ago. The tl;dr being a likely combination of greater exposure to chemicals and additives, weakened gut biomes, and less active lifestyles mean even accounting for food and exercise folks are heavier today than they were thirty years ago.

 

Won't quote the article because it has some great Old Economy Steve memes worth seeing, like this one!

 

 

Here's the article and some follow-up covering basic questions/observations.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/why-it-was-easier-to-be-skinny-in-the-1980s/407974/

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/10/why-do-we-keep-getting-fatter/408460/

[GregShaw]

 

 

Fun facts about lead exposure at indoor gun ranges. I take a ton of vitamin c before I go shooting.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5379568/

The two times a year I shoot indoors isn't enough to worry about. The 300 lbs of lead I cast into boolits each year I don't worry about either.

 

 

when you melt and cast the lead with good ventilation and a mask and do not lick your hands, you should be fine.

 

Yep, cast in my garage about 1 m from the open garage door. Don't eat or smoke while casting, wash up well when finished.

[lucklucky]

The intelligence gap. The privilege of those that eat meat...

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200127-how-a-vegan-diet-could-affect-your-intelligence

[Rick]

I was positive I posted this before but can't find it. Quick, but depressing read, about how it's harder to be thin compared to thirty years ago. The tl;dr being a likely combination of greater exposure to chemicals and additives, weakened gut biomes, and less active lifestyles mean even accounting for food and exercise folks are heavier today than they were thirty years ago.

 

Won't quote the article because it has some great Old Economy Steve memes worth seeing, like this one!

 

 

Here's the article and some follow-up covering basic questions/observations.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/why-it-was-easier-to-be-skinny-in-the-1980s/407974/

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/10/why-do-we-keep-getting-fatter/408460/

"...The tl;dr being a likely combination of greater exposure to chemicals and additives, weakened gut biomes,"

That technically is not what the article said. It said "might" which is a form of the word "maybe" I will agree with you on the less active life style/diet choices though.

[Stefan Fredriksson]

Over the years over here (Sweden), private healthcare has grown bigger, which has now peaked my curiosity.

1. Has the US always had the current system, or was is more "social" before?

2. What is your biggest problem with socialized healthcare, any of the reasons John Oliver lists, or other reasons?

 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Stefan Fredriksson

[MiloMorai]

https://www.newsweek.com/medicare-all-would-save-450-billion-annually-while-preventing-68000-deaths-new-study-shows-1487862?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation&spot_im_redirect_source=pitc&spot_im_comment_id=sp_vNTS7w0J_article-1487862_c_PRiunC&spot_im_highlight_immediate=true&fbclid=IwAR2GqCR6-tCMtgo4GDtJJpcqVfSJVJYUj43p_Y4T4f1zOEYmwLA_4igpyxo

​

Medicare for all would save $450 Billion annually.

[JWB]

https://www.newsweek.com/medicare-all-would-save-450-billion-annually-while-preventing-68000-deaths-new-study-shows-1487862?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation&spot_im_redirect_source=pitc&spot_im_comment_id=sp_vNTS7w0J_article-1487862_c_PRiunC&spot_im_highlight_immediate=true&fbclid=IwAR2GqCR6-tCMtgo4GDtJJpcqVfSJVJYUj43p_Y4T4f1zOEYmwLA_4igpyxo

​

Medicare for all would save $450 Billion annually.

Article is not worth reading because it fails to explain anything. It simply makes bold claims without proofs.

[Tim Sielbeck]

Over the years over here (Sweden), private healthcare has grown bigger, which has now peaked my curiosity.

1. Has the US always had the current system, or was is more "social" before?

2. What is your biggest problem with socialized healthcare, any of the reasons John Oliver lists, or other reasons?

 

 

1. More or less, yes.

 

2. My biggest problem with it is our government already takes in vast sums of money and has proven, year after year, to be incapable of managing that money efficiently. It is so bad that it borrows huge sums of money so it can pay for all the programs it has instituted and it clamors for more programs, that cost more money, that it needs to borrow even more money to pay for. It will come to pass, if it hasn't already, that our government will be paying more to service its debt than it pays to provide the services we already have.

[Rick]

Over the years over here (Sweden), private healthcare has grown bigger, which has now peaked my curiosity.

1. Has the US always had the current system, or was is more "social" before?

2. What is your biggest problem with socialized healthcare, any of the reasons John Oliver lists, or other reasons?

 

1. Current system.

2. Increase taxation, lower quality of care, health care rationing, no financial penalty for poor health care choices, will morph into political/social choice de-jour becoming a medical "fact" which will increase costs. Example one is homosexuality.

[Stargrunt6]

Also the pharmaceutical industry will absolutely pimp out a single payer system.

 

Also, single-payer in American means subsidizing the Standard American Diet (SAD).

 

https://health.gov/our-work/food-nutrition/2015-2020-dietary-guidelines/guidelines/chapter-2/current-eating-patterns-in-the-united-states/

Edited February 20, 2020 by Stargrunt6

[Skywalkre]

Also the pharmaceutical industry will absolutely pimp out a single payer system.

 

Also, single-payer in American means subsidizing the Standard American Diet (SAD).

 

https://health.gov/our-work/food-nutrition/2015-2020-dietary-guidelines/guidelines/chapter-2/current-eating-patterns-in-the-united-states/

Aren't both already happening?

[Skywalkre]

Over the years over here (Sweden), private healthcare has grown bigger, which has now peaked my curiosity.

1. Has the US always had the current system, or was is more "social" before?

2. What is your biggest problem with socialized healthcare, any of the reasons John Oliver lists, or other reasons?

 

That was a great piece by Oliver. Thanks for linking it. I stopped watching him a few years ago because he was getting too preachy (and was rarely funny anymore) but in that piece he does a decent job offering a balanced view of the issue.

 

To answer your second question while I've been a proponent of Health Care reform on here for years I have my concerns about a single payer system in the US. Keep in mind how large the US is in both landmass (3rd largest) and population (3rd largest again). We have a lot of people both in dense urban environments and also out in the middle of nowhere. There's some advantage to other countries in single payer like Canada (where most of their population is along a thin strip of land bordering the US) and the UK (which has less landmass than my state of AZ) where smaller population within a smaller area helps to a degree. As others have mentioned I'm also wary of the bureaucratic mess that would ensue from trying to implement a single payer system in the States.

 

One fair criticism to highlight this was the recent VA debacle a few years ago. Veterans are a group that can pretty much get what they want, who no one has any issue with, yet their system was horribly understaffed and poorly run. I was visiting the very VA hospital where the issue blew up and can personally attest to the problems. I was in school at the time and developed a really nasty upper respiratory bug. I tried to get in to see my doc and was told it'd be 30 days to see her. Ended up just riding out the illness and missing a lot of school in the process. This in a system where there's bipartisan support at the Fed level...

 

Look at Medicare. It's basic function is to help just a subset of the population - those 65 and older. Just a couple years ago abuse, fraud, and waste was accounting for 10% of its budget(link). I hate to think what that % would be if the entire country's health care system was under singular control.

 

The real tragedy is the debate seems to have turned into M4A from the Ds vs leave-it-as-is from the Rs (or worse yet, some Rs actually claiming what we have is good). Both options suck. They shouldn't be the only choices and no serious R who's not a tool should be arguing for what we have as a good system (Oliver was right when he said ask any American and you'll hear at least one horror story dealing with insurance companies).

 

Our system is in desperate need of reform. Oliver's video touched on a few reasons why.

 

- A large % of the population still has no coverage or ineffective coverage. Medical costs can still very easily bankrupt a person/family and do regularly.

- Oliver was right in highlighting Americans currently have no choice in their health care. For most you're limited to what your job offers you and then you're limited to the network of that insurance provider. You only have choice in this country if you're the 1% with a lot of money to throw around.

- So much of our health care spending is wasted on all the levels of admin within these insurance companies and within the medical community having to deal with insurance companies. There was a bit near the end of Oliver's piece where he said a concern would be the 1.8 million jobs lost under a single payer system. That's not a concern... that's bloat and waste in our current system. Any serious reform is going to see most of those jobs disappear and that's a good thing.

 

What worries me is the lack of any serious effort by the Rs to address this (most likely because the special interests benefiting from the status quo have the Rs' balls in a vice) means support for single payer will grow. As such we may one day end up with single payer not because it's what people really wanted but because it was the only option outside of the status quo offered.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Skywalkre

[Stargrunt6]

 

 

Also the pharmaceutical industry will absolutely pimp out a single payer system.

 

Also, single-payer in American means subsidizing the Standard American Diet (SAD).

 

https://health.gov/our-work/food-nutrition/2015-2020-dietary-guidelines/guidelines/chapter-2/current-eating-patterns-in-the-united-states/

Aren't both already happening?

 

They are. and with single payer, it'll be worse because now every taxpayer is on the hook.

[Stefan Fredriksson]

Thanks all!

Next question - who pays for educating doctors, nurses, physioterapeuts, aides...?

[Stargrunt6]

Usually themselves, barring military providers who get a scholarship wbich is payed back in years of service.

[Harold Jones]

There's also the National Health Service Corps https://bhw.hrsa.gov/loans-scholarships/nhsc

[Stargrunt6]

There's also the National Health Service Corps https://bhw.hrsa.gov/loans-scholarships/nhsc

Yep. But they are getting screwed for loan forgiveness.

[Stargrunt6]

HIV patient in remission via stem cells:

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhiv/article/PIIS2352-3018(20)30069-2/fulltext

[JWB]

Drug Reverses Age-Related Mental Decline Within Days

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/12/419201/drug-reverses-age-related-mental-decline-within-days

[Skywalkre]

Odd... I thought I started a thread just on US Healthcare reform.  Must've been lost in the transition to the new site.

Anywho, despite the criticisms of the massive COVID relief bill there are some good elements in it.  One is the elimination of most surprise medical bills.  Starting in 2022 Americans will finally have some protection from those bills which will be sent to your insurance who will have to negotiate with the doc.

In hearing a discussion on the matter I came across an interesting and frankly disgusting quote about one reason we got to this point:

Quote

• William Brangham:

  You have also reported that this isn't just a consequence, these bills are not just a consequence of our Byzantine medical system, but that they in some ways were engineered on purpose to make a profit.

  Who was doing that?

   

• Sarah Kliff:

  So, so these were some private equity firms who kind of realized there was an opportunity to profit off of this type of billing.

  And what we saw happening just a few years ago was, private equity firms would buy up doctor staffing groups, these doctors who staff emergency rooms, and they would pull them out of network. And all of a sudden, the rates would just shoot up.

  So, we saw that this wasn't just a mistake or one insurance company, one doctor not coming to an agreement. In some cases, these were private equity-created models for how to drive profits back to those folks, but also it was on the backs of the patients who are paying these bills.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/new-legislation-clamps-down-on-surprise-medical-bills

There's a special place in hell for the folks who thought of this.  🤬

Another reason why our system as a whole needs a complete overhaul.  Too many Rs defend what we have as fine.  It's not.  Here's one glaring example of why.

[Rick]

On 2/19/2020 at 9:41 AM, Stefan Fredriksson said:

Over the years over here (Sweden), private healthcare has grown bigger, which has now peaked my curiosity.

1. Has the US always had the current system, or was is more "social" before?

2. What is your biggest problem with socialized healthcare, any of the reasons John Oliver lists, or other reasons?

 

 

From the very liberal website Democratic Underground a few years ago.

"How would Medicare for All work from a financial aspect?

At present, 100% of contributions made to Medicare by everyone who has a job in this country cover the healthcare costs for the current program. Those tax dollars are barely enough to cover seniors on Medicare, who account for roughly 19% of the population.  So the question is: how much would payroll taxes need to increase to cover 100% of the population as opposed to the current 19%? The current tax rate is 1.45% for the employee and 1.45% for the employer, or a 2.9% total. 19% divides into 100% 5 times, so one assumes that one would need to raise the payroll tax five-fold to cover 100% of the population. That would mean that the employee would pay a tax of 7.25% as would the employer, equaling a tax of 14.5%.  Add into this the fact that current Medicare recipients pay monthly premiums of $109 on average, or $1308 a year.  So do the math: if you earn $50,000 a year, your Medicare tax would be $3625 at 7.25%. Add in your premiums of $1308, and you're paying just under $5,000 a year per person for Medicare for All. Sounds good.

But what if you are a family with a spouse who doesn't work and two young children who don't work? How are they covered in the Medicare for All scenario? Surely, there would be additional premium cost involved. They can't be covered free of charge. That $5000 per year mentioned above covers ONE working person, not their family members. Even if you waive the payroll tax deduction and charge only the average monthly premium per person (as Medicare currently does), you are looking at an additional $3900 per year to cover a non-working spouse and two children. That makes your cost around $9000 per year, and that is equal to 18% of that $50,000 income you are earning.

And, to cover all bases, let's not forget that you are currently paying 6.2% of your income in Social Security taxes. Add that into the mix, and your combined Medicare for All and SS expenses for that family of 4 with one bread winner described above would be over 25% of your income.

That's still a bargain when compared to the taxes paid in European nations, and it's the true cost of having a truly socialistic approach to things. It is what it is. Let's not downplay the realities involved.

I don't have the answers. I do know that while Medicare for All might well be the best and fairest approach we could take toward universal healthcare, it comes with real expenses and real costs to real people."

[Rick]

14 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Odd... I thought I started a thread just on US Healthcare reform.  Must've been lost in the transition to the new site.

Anywho, despite the criticisms of the massive COVID relief bill there are some good elements in it.  One is the elimination of most surprise medical bills.  Starting in 2022 Americans will finally have some protection from those bills which will be sent to your insurance who will have to negotiate with the doc.

In hearing a discussion on the matter I came across an interesting and frankly disgusting quote about one reason we got to this point:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/new-legislation-clamps-down-on-surprise-medical-bills

There's a special place in hell for the folks who thought of this.  🤬

Another reason why our system as a whole needs a complete overhaul.  Too many Rs defend what we have as fine.  It's not.  Here's one glaring example of why.

Good article, much needed legislation.,thanks for posting. The E.R. scenario is not the same for all insurance companies as some do cover out-of-network E.R. visits.