a little out of sync with the thread...sorry!
wanted to say also, glad things are going well with you len!

Thanks to all for the good wishes.

My surprise was how much rage I am suddenly feeling now that the survival pressure is off. Three years since the diagnosis and now months of treatment compounded by some business blows along the way made me very focused on keeping attitude up and eyes forward. Once they said "Ok, you're fine for now but this kind comes back sooner or later", I suddenly dropped into a very angry depressed mood. It seems contradictory but there it is.

It will pass and it's under control but it took me by surprise. How strange we are as critters... As I said elsewhere, I feel like Cyclops about to lose the glasses. Maybe it is just an internal pressure to get things done now that I have a dramatic proof that time slips away fast. As Rob said quoting Dustin Hoffman, at 20 you can double it and its ok, at forty the same, but not at 80... or 55. The trick it seems is to stay on point and still smile.

I miss the days as a restaurant troubadour, yes I do.

You, too, can join this Facebook group (see below). It follows the "logic" we've been seeing lately. It's how firefighting used to be in this country until the you-know-who's got government involved, for the silly reason that if your neighbor's house was allowed to burn, it might send a spark to your house, too. (Kind of like communicable diseases?) If your house was on fire and the fire truck came but then they saw that you didn't have the sticker in the window proving that you'd paid your fee, they would just keep driving.

1 Million Strong Against our SOCIALIST Fire Departments


For too long now, fire departments across the United States have been socialist organizations, resulting in taxes on the American people.

FACT: Most Americans never use the socialized services of the fire department. The Obama administration has been very clear about keeping the status quo when it comes to taxpayer-funded fire departments.

It is time to open the fire department up to private industry. We have the best fire departments in the world in the US, but that doesn't mean that anyone (even non-US citizens) should be able to dial up and have fires put out, etc. There are private companies (Halliburtion, Etc.) who could step in tomorrow and take over every fire department in America and charge the consumer directly.

This is AMERICA. NO FREE FIRE SAFETY.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in asbestos and carrying a fire hose."

Please tell everyone you know about this group!

(Edited to say, I had a great picture to post with this, but it says "[img] is OFF" and I can't see a way to do that.)

Danged commie fire fighters......let's privatize it all!!! Law enforcement, education, social security (Bush's crowning revelation), religion (no conflict between church and state there), the judiciary (oh yeah, half of them are already privatized), the military......capitalism is so fair and efficient, let's just make everything "for profit" and, as we have recently seen, the market will work everything out perfectly for us......

Actual straight question. No sarcasm, etc. applies: If you're physically able to, why not pick it up again?

I am a Biochemical researcher, specializing in Natural Products and Protein Chemistry. I do agree with some of this stuff. BUT, I dont see a huge problem with the way health care is given. Let me explain. I see much use in herbs and things like that. BUT, I dont think this is reason to discount modern medicine. It is currently the best method to treat illness. If these herbs and such were as good at curing illness as people might think, why are they not used by the industry? A common answer would be to protect the profit of big Pharma. But I see this is wrong. Where do most drugs come from if you trace back where they or their derivatives where discoverd? Herbs. So if they worked as well as people think, big pharma would extract these drugs and give them to patiens in a pure form, which is always much more safe.

It is not like they are trying to keep them away from you because they want you to use their products only. Probably, they dont use them because much research has been done, and either, you actually are using a derivative ( much better) of the drug in the herb, or it was not as viable a drug candidate as they hoped.

I know there is a big push for natural is better. Here is a good example. i will use a recreational drug, and a common statement I have heard. There is Psilocybin Mushrooms and LSD. Many proponents of recreational drugs draw the line at 'natural' drugs, saying they are from the earth and are therefore safer. This is a VERY common misunderstanding. They woul say leave LSD alone and use Mushrooms if you decide to use. Actually, the two compounds are very similar and one is no more toxic than the other. In all actuality, a close relative of LSD is found in a type of vine.

My point is most drugs are better versions of drugs found in plants, or are the same drug that is in your favorite herbal remedy. If you had to choose between Smoking Marijuana and being given pure THC to smoke, the wise choice would be pure THC, there is less plant matter, and it would be much safer to use. Similarly, if you were given the choice between an herb and the pure chemical in a pill., the smart choice is the pure chemical. There could be other chemicals in the herb that you should not take.



Anyway, back onto health care.

I see huge problems with insurance companies and the like. I can see how they are pretty bad companies, but at the same time they are companies. If you were a business owner, would you want the government to tell you that you had to make a bad business decision? The government telling insurance companies that they must take people with preexisting conditions is not right. How can they knowingly do something that is going to drive them under? But people have the right to healthcare... Its a tough issue. If this happened, the cost of a regular guy to have insurance would skyrocket.

Now what about a one payer option. I dont see how this will ever work. NOTHING the government has done in this respect has ever worked. I think the government should give tax incentives to businesses who offer health insurance to their employees at low cost. But why dont the democrats not want to do this? well, this is money that does not go into the FEDs pockets. If they gave tax breaks, they would lose money for all their other projects....

Also, I am not a big fan of this sudden attack on tobbacco. I think people should do whatever they want. The government has no right to tell me what I can and cannot do to my body. BUT, if I smoke ciggarettes my whole life, and I put next to nothing into the system, when I get lung cancer, you guys should not be responsible for my health problems. It is not fair that your Social Security is used up by me, so when you have problems you have no money.

I am not saying this is not a trickey problem.. And I am not saying that we dont have room to improve with medicine. But, America has the best healthcare in the world.... I am talking baout medicine. People form all over the world come here for our medicine. Also, Canada is supposed to have awesome social healthcare... More people die from cancer there than in the USA.

Captain Zap: In retrospect, my answer to that question is too off topic. Like that guy standing on the road, it's too late to give 'em my name.

rcp6 - You have some ideas that are simply not supported by real science. Synthetic reproductions of natural products rarely (if ever) work as well as those found in nature. That's really last century science, where we are taught that vitamins and minerals extracted from natural sources are more effective than consuming real foods. Simply untrue, so consume multi-vitamin pills at your own risk. Real foods and healthy life-style have been shown to be far more effective (generally with few exceptions) at maintaining health and well being. The exceptions would be where it isn't practical or easy to get what your body needs. Vitamin D3, for example would best become a part of you through exposure to sunlight without sunscreen (over 50% of your body for more than 15 minutes a day). That's not easy in Alaska, so D3 from other natural sources would be better than nothing.

These days, you can't hardly find real foods anyway so it may be a moot point well taken. In fact, synthetic reproductions have recently shown to actually cause disease. In estrogen replacement therapy, for example, the synthetic hormone has now been proven beyond doubt to cause a big increase in risk of breast cancer and yet it is STILL being prescribed by doctors.

Trying to ascribe motive is a losing game so I wouldn't be betting the farm on the profit motive or whatever else big pharma is doing. On the other hand, any group of people spending over a million dollars a day to prevent real change in health care can't be trusted to be motive-free!

You are right (in my estimation) that modern science of medicine is great when you get in a car wreak and need immediate care for catastrophic illness (cutting and pasting), But, for the best medical outcomes you may want to be in another country. That's why the USA is like 32nd on the list of healthcare around the world.

If you'd like, you may want to check some other sources than med school for your own information. I'd start with the Weston A. Price Foundation for some valuable info. http://www.westonaprice.org/

All the best,
adg

I wanted to pass along this letter written by my friend John McCutcheon, folksinger, writer and storyteller, dealing with the subject at hand.......


Random Acts of Outrage

As we teeter on the brink of the first major health care overhaul since Medicare was created we, as a country, are as indecisive as Brett Favre about what we want to do. We know that over 40 million people have no health insurance…and more of the newly unemployed are swelling those ranks. We know that insurance companies only make money by denying coverage. We know that anyone with any kind of pre-existing condition is not going to get individual coverage. We know that insurance providers are already making decisions about our care. We know that insurance costs are rising at an alarming…and unsustainable…rate. And yet a substantial number of people think “the market should take care of things.” Sheesh!

Friends, let’s be clear. People without health care coverage live sicker and die sooner. They put off routine tests that could save their lives. More and more people are treating emergency rooms like primary care facilities. And we pay for that coverage for those folks. Our system is not the envy of the world, nor does it provide the best care in the world. (The World Health Organization lists the US as 37th, just edging out Slovenia and Cuba!) We neglect preventive care, fail to introduce any reasonable cost controls, and refuse to face the difficult issue of malpractice reform.

As I travel around the world I’ve made friends in countries far and wide. And every one of those countries has a national health plan. Do I hear complaints? Sure. Would any of these folks I’ve talked to trade their system for ours? Not a one. We trust the government to execute wars, to maintain infrastructure, to provide policing and firefighting personnel and equipment, to provide for us in our old age…with Social Security and Medicare, a government single-payer health plan. We decry paying taxes but are willing to pony up endlessly to the insurance giants and hope we are not denied the coverage we believe we have. When is someone going to cry “uncle?”

There have been a lot of lies and misconceptions lofted into the current debate about how to cure our health care ills. “Death panels,” rationing, the elimination of an appeals process…let’s start talking about how to fix a system that is broken and not get swamped by ideological posturing and fabrication.

And, oh, that fabrication was the least of it. Now people are showing up with guns at public events holding signs that quote Jefferson, “Time to water the tree of liberty!” Those who know the full quote “…with the blood of patriots and tyrants” could not help be outraged at the perversion of democracy their presence portends. Democracy and the democratic process is a robust and often rough-and-tumble discussion of ideas. Weapons…and the intimidation they introduce…have no place in that discussion or that process. So let’s have an energetic debate. But let’s leave the knee-jerk ideology, the lies, the lobbyists, and, for God’s sake, the guns at the door. Let’s not get any sicker than we already are.

A side note: Average life expectancy during the Roman Empire and Medieval Britain was 20 to 30 years. Early 20th century was 30 to 40. World average is currently 67. Granted, the increase is most likely not due to any one thing but greater knowledge and improvements in awareness, hygiene, medicine and nutrition contributed much to the increase.

Hi Captain Zap,

I apologize for not getting back sooner. Had something going on here.

Wow, what a question. To be honest I'm not really sure.
I guess that would depend on my financial status.
If I was substantially well off I would without a doubt choose the US system.

If I was in the ranks of the poorer then I would have to choose the Canadian and hope I did not require any medical or diagnostic attention in a short period of time or did not have a serious condition.

Many years ago the Canadian system was excellent. However over the years it has become somewhat very less than it was.

I can see in years to come there is a chance it will be profit driven.
In fact I guess it is safe to say there are those that are testing the water now.

The Health care system is a big issue here. The health care workers are not at all happy with the system. However it is the politicians and suits that make the decisions.

It's a very emotional issue.

My personal view is quite simple.
Profit should not be considered before peoples well being.
Anyone requiring medical attention should have access to it, regardless of race, color, creed or financial status.

Anyone following these things to any degree can certainly become disillusioned in the 'system'.

Amen to that, brother. That's what it all boils down to.

The folks who say that the US Constitution has nothing about "the right to health care" miss the point. The founding fathers didn't have to put that in the Constitution. But they did consider that, no matter how good the country might get to be, there's always room for improvement. We seem to have lost the sense of community in our every day lives. Sure, folks get together and help in times of great crisis but that seems short lived and soon forgotten. Four years since Katrina and the Gulf Coast is still a mess, New Orleans all but forgotten in the public eye.

The Constitution was made to be changed and this country was founded to be improved upon and make life better, not for just an elite few, but for everyone. And universal health care would do just that.

Captain Zap wrote:

"A side note: Average life expectancy during the Roman Empire and Medieval Britain was 20 to 30 years. Early 20th century was 30 to 40. World average is currently 67. Granted, the increase is most likely not due to any one thing but greater knowledge and improvements in awareness, hygiene, medicine and nutrition contributed much to the increase."





And that's an amazing thing......more precious time But in my life as a social worker, the discussion continuously comes up as to what is more important: adding more years to our life or adding more life to our years I envision a society that does both. It seems me (I loathe stereotyping, but...) that the folks who are rabidly frothing at the mouth in opposition to competent, fair and equal health care for every American would also be the same ones who would oppose most every other government social program that is designed to improve the quality of a person's existence. The notion that an individual lives in poverty because they are too lazy to work, or because of a mental disease or "moral character flaw" is as mythological as the misinformation being spread about the health care plan by its opponents. Those lazy, crazy and/or morally deficient individuals make up a tiny fraction of poor folks who are poor through no fault of their own. Maybe they were born poor or are too sick to work (don't forget that alcoholism and drug addiction ARE diseases!) or "just ol' plain down on their luck", as I could hear Woody sayin'......

The healthier the crowd, the healthier the individual. I'm for universal health care. Self-preservation, I call it.

When health care and the news are about profit, common good and common sense go to war with each other.

I have to disagree with most of what is being said about healthcare in the United States. What I DO agree with is that we need to do more for the poor...the TRULY poor, not those who chose cable TV, SUV's, and other "luxuries", but whine because they can't afford health insurance.

Insurance should remain a state issue as determined by the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1938. Health insurance is no different than any other form of insurance. Profitable? Yes, each State Department of Insurance requires that your insurance company remain profitable. To do this, they require insurance companies set reserves to pay future claims. The governement will have no such requirement. When claims get out of hand, the government (which is code for "you and me, brother") will require higher taxes and limit benefits. Pete Peterson, a former treasury official recently stated on the Diane Rheme show (NPR) that the only way to control costs is to set a budget and stay within that budget. That is a reasonable expectation, but that's not how insurance companies operate today. As costs escalate due to new technology, which is very expensive, the costs are added to future premiums, but insureds, especially in the employer-provided arena, are able to shop around for a better deal, or alter the plan to meet their own needs and budgets.

The rhetoric surrounding "you'll be able to keep your own insurance policy if you want" is also complete crap. Sure, you can keep it, but why would you (or your employer) continue to pay an insurance company when the "public option" is available at no additional costs. You're already paying the taxes to support that plan, why pay twice?

Another issue with the reform bill is that it would require insurance companies to provide coverage without regard to pre-existing conditions. Did we learn nothing in the recent mortgage crisis when sub-prime loans to people who couldn't qualify under the traditional lending underwriting rules that existed in all of the 20th century? Lenders "threw away the book" on rational underwriting to put more people in homes, employing more construction workers, selling more appliances, etc., only to see thi house of cards collapse on all of us. It felt good for a while, but that sense of euphoria was short lived.

The reform bill is froth with unrealistic expectations and needs to be massaged in a sensible fashion.