Health care WTF

[PrincessFiona]

and more reason to make incremental changes?

Our tax dollars at work?

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov...alth-religion3

$20/day for prayer treatment? LOL

Kris

[Meenah]

Oh dear, please tell me this is a joke.

[Pollyanna]

You mean you are supposed to be charging $20/day for prayer?? Seriously...

[PrincessFiona]

Will this take away from the actual power of prayer? LOL Isn't it something that is supposed to come from the heart and be between a person and God for it to have meaning? They don't want to pay for the time that it takes for a doctor to talk to a dying patient's family, but ... for prayer? This might be the funniest thing I've read in a long time.

How on earth did John Kerry come to back this? Ted Kennedy? Eeek. I admittedly don't know much about Orrin Hatch.That church has way too much power.

The American people need to form a powerful organization with deep pockets to lobby for what we want I guess.

Kris

[Rapunzel]

That church has way too much power.

Could you clarify this statement?

[PrincessFiona]

The policy was pushed through by representatives from the state of MA where the main headquarters of this church is located. This has yet again (as with any business, church, whatever) the appearance of being a one hand washes the other kind of a deal.

I actually find it morally offensive that we are now going to compensate for PRAYER. If I were God, I would have a policy effective immediately that I don't give an up or down vote on any prayer where compensation is involved. It sort of takes away from the genuine flavor of prayer in general, don't you think?

Any organization or Church with that type of power...to push on a policy that benefits it and get something pushed through that benefits it (when prayer is supposed to be part and parcel of the practice of religion) gets a thumb down from me. Simply put, they have too much power if they can get the elected representatives in their state to bend on common sense like that...and I would say that about any church or organization (And do).

[Rapunzel]

You could include chiropractic treatment and many "alternative medicine" (ie failed medical) treatments into the same category. We reimburse for chiropractic care - glorified massages. And, chiropractic is based entirely on faith - it is it's own religion to a certain extent. And, I'd argue that environmentalism has definitely entered into the area of religion (much of it is faith-based).

We reimburse and fund many different faith-based things already.

I'm not saying I agree with the compensation of prayer (I actually find it ludicrous). But, it's not something new for our government to fund something that is faith-based - even in medicine or other branches of science.

[PrincessFiona]

Actually, I wouldn't cover chiropractic or naturopathic care either ... Take that for what it is worth. I think we have to be able to apply a scientific standard to care given. I also wouldn't pay for massages for people. Go see the chiro, take your homeopathic remedies or have a leg massage...and pay for it out of pocket.

At least I'm consistent.

[Sheherezade]

But then ...do we also not cover mammography in your 40s? There is some scientific thought that they do little good to prevent breast cancer deaths because the cancers uncovered in the forties often are so aggressive that a year is all they need to advance past treatment options. And HRT after menopause? Also up for scientific debate. What about antidepressants? Most research shows that the effect from antidepressants is similar to the effect from placebo. So, why pay seven bucks a pill for a placebo effect?

I'm all for following science - but science is often slow. In fact, many of the treatments offered to cancer patients now that "work" are trials -- so they wouldn't be covered either is we opted to only go with proven techniques.

I'm not sure how we'd decide what was "proven" based on science when science itself always leaves the door open to questions.

That said, I'm personally for a very basic level of coverage provided to all. I don't think massage would ever fall under that umbrella. Or private rooms, frankly.

[PrincessFiona]

I think what you are talking about involves nuances in science that are each worthy of their own place of discussion.

I believe that science seeks to continuously test itself and when findings are inconsistent with current practices (because we try to practice evidence based medicine) we change our practices. Do we want to practice evidence based medicine? If not, what might that look like?

Whether or not the research, for example, supports routine annual mammography before 50 is unclear to me. I think it was more complicated than not finding enough aggressive cancers. Every procedure also comes with risks. Is it worth the risk if exposing the breast directly to x-Ray radiation, biopsies for false positives etc for people not in a high risk category? I don't know. We have to look at the numbers with an open mind and not a fearful heart.

The difference in my mind between say homeopathy for cancer tx vs empirically researched and dosed chemotherapy is undeniable.

If the naturopathic industry can come out with peer-reviewed studies that are scientifically sound and are repeatable, to support their treatments then we can talk.

Science and medicine make that effort.

So for me, until those criteria are met, then someone can have their special teas ... Just not on my dime.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sheherezade]

If we went to a voucher system (a la Paul Ryan) perhaps the patient could decide how to spend the money allotted to them. Remember that the people that believe in prayer and "special teas" may also be taxpayers. They have paid in to the system and may feel justified getting access to the treatment options they select. This comes back to the issue of "Who decides?" Does the government decide what is "good medicine"? Do the doctors? Do the patients decide what they'd like done?

I find the case of antidepressants to be most interesting. Because the science behind them is lax, many European governments do not pay for their use. That's evidence based medicine. Still....take antidepressants away from the U.S. population and you will see a media sh*tstorm about the evils of depression and Senators standing up on the floor clutching letters from the parents of children dead by their own hand--- never mind the science that depression is not cured (in the majority of cases) by antidepressants.

[PrincessFiona]

I could agree to that, Angie. I have no problem with that provided they pay in the tax dollars aren't refunded them at the end of the year.

But then...what happens when the homeopathic remedy doesn't actually treat/cure the ovarian cancer and the patient realizes that they have shot their wad on a non-researched approach that they believe in? Do they then get treatment anyway even if they don't have money? Does your dh turn them away at the door? I'm guessing no. I sure couldn't turn them away even if they had made a choice to use chiropractic care and homeopathy to treat their child's lymphoma etc (we had a case like that recently in MN).

Do we hold people then accountable for their own treatment dollars and refuse to be the safety net?

I think the problem that you run into is that if the govt. is paying then they have a say. Each of us will pay in a premium, but our treatments cost more than that. If the govt. picks up that tab, they get a say in how we spend the money.

The anti-depressant issue is very interesting and complex. And you are right...in the US of overmedicateA, there would be a shit storm. Big Pharma would hire the best attorneys they could too.

In that regard, I also believe that the marriage between business and medicine is a very delicate dance and I'm not sure how they belong together, though I know at some level that they do. Studies on antidepressant efficacy are compounded also by the idea (my opinion here) that we do overdiagnose and medicate. Someone experiencing depression as a function of life stress, for example, may not have an endogenous depression that would be helped by antidepressants. Here's a short blurb I found from 2010 that supports my thesis: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...607761408.html

It is a tough area that deserves more research....

And that is key for me...it is being studied and researched...and I don't know that I would argue that the research is lax...just that the results are disappointing.

Here in the US, you don't even get it measured out how much of an active ingredient is supposedly in your homeopathic remedy. I have never, ever read a well-researched report that shows a scientific relationships between manipulation of the spine and depression. Do some people feel better afterwards? Do they feel happier? Yes...that, to me isn't enough that I'm willing to say that our tax dollars should go to fund those treatments.

If they can come up with the reproducible, peer-reviewed studies....like I said...then I'm all for it.