The Perils Of "Free" Healthcare
First of all, take economics 101: If we have socialized medicine, it's not going to be free health care, it's going to be very expensive health care, because we're all going to be paying for it; we're just going to be taxed and taxed for it.
And when some politician says, "Sorry, kids, we have to pay for it somehow," and raises your taxes, and raises them again and again, what do you do? Tell them the country should buy cheaper Bandaids?
There's a story in today's IHT, by Sarah Lyall, of what happens when British patients go in for private care; in this case, Avastin, a drug I know about because it help keep Cathy Seipp with us a little longer. The problem is, as Lyall puts it, "how to handle patients with complex illnesses who want to pay for parts of their treatment while receiving the rest free from the health service":
One such case was Debbie Hirst's. Her breast cancer had metastasized, and the health service would not provide her with Avastin, a drug that is widely used in the United States and Europe to keep such cancers at bay. So, with her oncologist's support, she decided last year to try to pay the roughly £60,000, or $116,000, cost herself, while continuing with the rest of her publicly financed treatment.By December, she had raised £10,000 and was preparing to sell her house to raise more. But then the government, which had tacitly allowed such arrangements before, put its foot down. Hirst heard the news from her doctor.
"He looked at me and said, 'I'm so sorry, Debbie. I've had my wrists slapped from the people upstairs, and I can no longer offer you that service,' " Hirst said.
"I said, 'Where does that leave me?' He said, 'If you pay for Avastin, you'll have to pay for everything' " - in other words, for all her cancer treatment, far more than she could afford.
Officials said that allowing Hirst and others like her to pay for extra drugs to supplement government care would violate the philosophy of the health service by giving richer patients an unfair advantage over poorer ones.
Patients "cannot, in one episode of treatment, be treated on the NHS and then allowed, as part of the same episode and the same treatment, to pay money for more drugs," Health Secretary Alan Johnson told Parliament. "That way lies the end of the founding principles of the NHS."
But Hirst, who is 57 and was first diagnosed with cancer in 1999, went to the news media, and so did other patients in similar situations. And it became clear that theirs were not isolated cases.
In fact, it is widely acknowledged by patients, doctors and officials across the health care system that patients suffering from every imaginable complaint regularly pay for some parts of their treatment while receiving the rest free.
..."People swap from public to private sector all the time, and they're topping up for virtually everything," he said.
For instance, he said, a patient put on a five-month waiting list to see an orthopedic surgeon might pay £120 for a private consultation, and then switch back to the health service for the actual surgery from the same doctor.
"Or they'll buy an MRI scan because the wait is so long, and then take the results back to the NHS," Charlson said.
In his paper, he also wrote about a 46-year-old woman with breast cancer who paid £250 for a second opinion when the health service refused to provide her with one; an elderly man who spent thousands of pounds on a new hearing aid instead of enduring a year-long wait on the health service; and a 29-year-old woman who - with her doctor's blessing - bought a three-month supply of Tarceva, a drug to treat pancreatic cancer, for more than £3,150 on the Internet because she could not get it through the NHS.
...But in a final irony, Hirst was told early this month that her cancer had spread and her condition had deteriorated so much that she could have the Avastin after all - paid for by the health service. In other words, a system that forbade her to buy the medicine earlier was now saying that she was so sick she could have it at public expense.
Hirst is pleased, but only to a point. Avastin is not a cure, but a way to extend her life, perhaps only by several months, and she has missed valuable time. "It may be too bloody late," she said.
On a side note about Cathy, she's often in my thoughts -- randomly, when there's something in the media that she would've written about (in her sharp, biting, Seipp-ian way), or when I think of something she chastised people for.
Just last night, on the way to dinner, I mentioned to my friends Richard and Vincent that Cathy said something along the lines of "Gum chewing is vulgar!"...and any time I thought of popping a piece in my mouth, her words came echoing back to me. I enjoy this -- it's like a little visit from Cathy, although it doesn't do much for the economics of the Trident company.
So, would you be in favor of a system where everyone is required by law to have insurance, and in exchange for the captive audience of customers the insurance companies would be subject to stricter regulations, with requirements to provide discounted care pro-rated for lower incomes?
Clinky at February 21, 2008 12:51 AM
NO! Instead, think, "Medical VISA card". No cost if you don't use it, billing with which you are familiar, the requirement that you negotiate with your doctor for services rather than "yes, please" to everything they have, with garnishment of pay available just as it is for consumer debt today. You can stay out of the ER for colds and flu, go get meds on your own. And the card can be a buffer, in that no, you don't go broke getting a broken arm set because you always get to make payments.
Radwaste at February 21, 2008 2:15 AM
There is always going to be a trade off between cost & service. If you want easy, quick access with cutting edge care there is going to be more cost. I would argue, however, that socialized medicine is not necessarily more expensive. Although, privatized has the deterant of payment it's only for the uninsured. In public, there are often items not covered (such as most medications) that should cause the same effect. Where socialized saves is on access. They allow wait times to increase (some would argue excessively) which ultimately saves the system money. In fact Canada spends roughly 1/2 per capita than the US and 36% less as a percent of GDP (15.3% vs 9.8%). I'm not a politian (just a blogger www.waittimes.blogspot.com ) and I don't think either country has the perfect system yet.
Ian Furst at February 21, 2008 2:55 AM
The problem I see with required insurance is that the insurance companies are a large part of the problem, deciding what they will and will not cover and then only if you did thus and thus. I took one look at the set of instructions, the size of a magazine, which listed what I was to do for various conditions, etc. and parked in on a closet shelf to be referenced if need be. I'm still not clear on when I need to get permission to go to the ER and when I don't. All I know is I hate the ER so dreadfully that I'm not going anyway unless it's dire and there ain't going to be no consulting my insurance company's regs first. We'll fight it out in court if need be.
I don't know about socialized medicine. Frankly, if we had it, I'm damned if it should cover things like cosmetic surgery anyway and they seem to think it's all one and the same and the tales about the long waiting period and incidents like you report here where there is socialized medicine makes that thought off-putting.
More and more, I would like to have my coverage disconnected from my job. If I want to change jobs or even leave it (if I have the means to do so), I don't want a need for medical care of some kind keeping me there. Despite my current low premiums as a benefit, because of things I've read here from this blog, I am debating checking out rates for major medical on my own before our next open enrollment and see if I can opt out but I am not even sure that is allowed or not. Odds are I won't even if it is because I will pay at least twice as much on my own. But I'd like it to be affordable and not be dependent on my employer.
However, I'd also like to see health care practices be about medicine and less dictated by the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. I want to find a doctor that thinks as independently as I do instead of buying what the drug salesman/pusher tells him to give his patients knee jerk. Christ, sake, I'm afraid to admit I do some tossing and turning of my legs at night in bed because they currently push a pill for that and it ain't no big deal. Move my legs, turn over and go back to sleep. It's ridiculous what they shove pills down our throats for without regard for the always existent side effects these days. And if you do suffer side effects, they shove yet another one for that.
I've become very drug and doctor wary and that's not good for someone with high blood pressure and other health conditions. My doctor, who I only thought was okay, not great and I only thought that because he was patient with my resistence to being prescribed things willy nilly, retired a couple of years ago and I haven't replaced him yet though I know I should. I go to urgent care if I definitely can't shake something and need a script and hate it. I need to seriously start seeking a new doctor but before I'd even make an appointment for a checkup, there's serious questions I want answered like their approach to medicine. Mine: you're there to advise. Tell me what I risk not taking whatever medicine, what I risk if I do and let me decide which risk I'd rather take rather than just dictating what you prefer (or all too often these days what the pharmaceutical/insurance companies tell you to order your patients to do).
I'm not sure what the answer is, just that the whole damned system needs improvement and that the solution should involve more freedom of choice for the patient and the doctor.
Donna at February 21, 2008 5:16 AM
Watch Great Britain to see where the socialized healthcare nanny-state will take us.
Want to smoke a cigarette? Get a license.
And you know, red meat really isn't good for you. The red wine isn't doing much for you, either. We're going to need you to 'contribute' a little more to the national health.
Snoop Diggity-DANG-Dawg at February 21, 2008 5:24 AM
I think the situation is actually worse than what's reported. The health service declined to provide the drug because the patient failed the "cost / benefit" analysis. The insurance provider and the State, the same parties in this case, then told the patient that not only would they not pay for the treatment but that she also could not pay for the treatment. The State "Health Care" system sentenced her to an earlier death to save money.
You know... those old people are net users of State resources and the chronically ill don't contribute to the State coffers... hmmm... maybe I need to tweak the "cost / benefit" analysis and find a way to cut costs...
Who wants their life dependent on a nameless State bureaucrat? Evidently quite a few people.
Donna you might want to rethink this "Despite my current low premiums as a benefit...". The company isn't paying anything, you're paying the full premium out of your gross wages and compensation. You're also paying the "company's share" of your Social Security. There is some benefit as your company plan uses pre-tax dollars while private health insurance is after-tax. How big the difference is depends on your federal tax bracket.
Curly Smith at February 21, 2008 5:50 AM
Nope, I don't smoke. I eat red meat, not excessively, but I like it. I drink red wine, a glass or two of merlot never hurt anybody, now did it? I'm 50 years old, not on any medication, my bp is 104/67, I could stand to drop about 20 lbs, but I'm 5'7" so I wear it pretty well. I have health insurance through work for me and the girls, I pay ~$60/month, including dental and vision. We get our annual check ups (copay for an office visit is $15), vision once a year (we all wear glasses, the girls for distance, me for reading), dentist 2x a year for a cleaning and that's been it so far, thank the gods. (If I were to get laid off, and opt for the COBRA package, I'd have to pay close to $850/month for the 3 of us. How in the hell does that make any sense?)
We're relatively healthy, and I intend to keep it that way. What I refuse to do is succumb to the mindset that I "need" any kind of medication just because the pharmaceutical companies say I do. Donna, like you, I've got the leg thing at night, and I have some kind of bothersome shoulder pain, but it's nothing an Advil here or there can't take care of, and most days, I don't take anything. If I don't pay all that much attention to it, it goes away after a while. I might put a heating pad on it for a little while while I'm watching tv, or maybe a little tiger balm. When I asked the doctor about the shoulder thing, he was all, you want a painkiller? Percocet? Vicodin? I was like, get the hell out of here, I don't need something like that! He had me get an xray, told me there was nothing there (I thought I might have bursitis, but the xrays said no), so I said, well, then, never mind. It's not chronic pain, it's just a pain in the ass sometimes when I move a certain way. Oh well. This too will pass. Hopefully. I think life was much simpler before the HMOs got in on the act. You got sick, you saw your GP, you paid him what you could (or in my dad's case, when we were kids, did maintenance or some other mechanical work on his car), done. YMMV
Flynne at February 21, 2008 5:50 AM
Caution: "free" medical advice ahead
Hey Flynne, I had shoulder pain for years and got the same "try these" routine from my doctor which I always waved off. My friends were always pushing chiroquacktic but I had no interest in that either. Finally, a doctor threw up his hands and suggested a trip to Physical Therapy as though he were making a referral to a witch doctor. (There must be a story there.)
Anyway, the PT listened to my symptoms for about two minutes and then gave me a simple test that showed I had been walking around with a collapsed shoulder for years. She showed me a couple exercises and stretches and within a few weeks I was pain free and have been ever since.
Need I add: YMMV
martin at February 21, 2008 7:05 AM
" (I thought I might have bursitis, but the xrays said no"
Flynne, I really admire that you investigated before you went to the dr. So many people don't. They just sit there and wait to be spoonfed whatever knowledge he bestows on them, even though the insurance and pharmaceutical companies have his ear.
I am very frank with our family doctor, so much so that I can usually just call him and he will phone in a prescription for antibiotics, etc. He never tries to force any meds on me (except when I get bronchitis every winter, and after 2 antibiotic prescriptions he makes me come in so he can give me this nasty inhaler, I'm such a baby).
I also made this poor nurse practitioner (who was sub-ing for my childrens pediatrician) cry once. It was like she was just so happy to have that fucking prescription pad, she wanted to give my infant vitamin D drops (among other things), because I was breastfeeding and that vitamin may not be adequate in breast milk. So I said, "first of all, children have survived for thousands of years on breast milk, and wouldn't the vitamin D that she gets from sitting in the sunshine for 10 minutes (it was summertime) be sufficient?" Stupid bitch.
dena at February 21, 2008 7:06 AM
Flynne, more free medical advice for shoulder pain...
I had arm pain for years. My right shoulder hurt, my right elbow sometimes hurt and my right wrist hurt. Yeah, the same tendon was involved in all and it started with all of the mouse-clicking. After years of stupidity I finally cured myself --- I took the arm off of my office chair. It finally dawned on me that I was leaning on the armrest whenever I used the mouse and, in doing so, was putting a lot of pressure on the shoulder joint which inflamed the tendon which caused all of the pain. Vast improvement was felt within days after removing the chair arm, within a week the pain was, and still is, gone.
Maybe something to consider or maybe I'm the only idiot in the world. Sadly, the two need not be mutually exclusive.
Curly Smith at February 21, 2008 7:55 AM
This story summs up socialized medecine:
One of the souveniers I brought back from my USAF tour in West Germany in the late 80's was a German Girlfriend. She lived with me in the states for a few years working jobs that didn't offer health insurance. No big deal. We were young + healthy. Anyway, she has a problem with het teeth and ends up having to pay big money to replace all the caps on her front teeth. She had nice teeth so I asked her why she originally had to have the caps put on back when she was a teenager. Her reply was that her German Dentist told her she might as well have it done since it was free.
There you have it. It was "Free" so why not get it done. That's socialized medecine.
Sean at February 21, 2008 8:30 AM
Stories like this are why socialized medicine won't fly in the U.S. We believe if you have the money, you should be able to buy better shit. Any plans that don't allow for that are dead on arrival.
I like the Visa idea Rad mentioned above. Reminds me of a Crid comment along these lines: "We will never solve our health care problems until Americans can apply their negotiation skills when it comes to health care services and costs." Or something like that.
justin case at February 21, 2008 8:51 AM
I sliced my hand open a year ago. It cost about $1000 for a simple sewing job at the hospital. Four stitches.
My horse impaled herself on a piece of metal. It left an 8 inch cut on her stomach. The Vet charged me $200 to sew her up. Almost 20 stitches.
Both her and I got the same antibiotics. Mine cost over $100 while hers cost $10.
Why does it cost 10x as much for me to get treated versus my horse?
Why do I need to go to an ER to get my cuts fixed?
The vet came outside his little office and did my horse in my trailer. He has a tiny little office and has his own blood test and other hardware, ekg, and is talking about getting some other nifty gadgets.
austin at February 21, 2008 9:29 AM
austin - two words ... malpractice insurance. thank the lazy sons a bitches that fraud insurance companies or want something for nothing.
dena at February 21, 2008 9:38 AM
"austin - two words ... malpractice insurance."
Exactly. And it's suck-hole, millionare tools like John Edwards we have to thank for it. He wants to do something about poverty in America? How about writing a couple fat checks in your 30,000 sq. ft mansion, turd-bag?
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at February 21, 2008 10:01 AM
I think it's important to note that the high cost of medical care in the US is mainly caused by two government market interventions: (1) the government sets prices for medical procedures, (2) the government monopolizes the supply of qualified doctors.
Medicare and Medicaid are price fixing schemes, and the economic effect of government price controls is well understood. By controlling funding of medical schools, Congress indirectly controls the supply of physicians.
It's not widely understood that we already have a socialized medical system, in the sense that the means of production are controlled by the government. What irks people is that we have all the disadvantages of socialized care without the advantage of universal coverage. This is a valid and true observation.
We need to decide what our system will be, socialist or free-market. I'm for free-markets on the grounds of liberty, efficiency and flexibility.
Jeff at February 21, 2008 10:45 AM
We already have some socalized medicine in this country. Ever hear of champus and tri-care?
How about Walter Reed memorial hospital? That was brought to you by socialized medicine
lujlp at February 21, 2008 11:21 AM
I'll add another anecdote to the pile.
My husband is from France, and when his mother was in the very final stages of Alzheimer's disease - really so far gone that she could not sit up on her own or chew food - the health care system there was still providing things like an ambulance ride to the dentist to get broken crown replaced. My FIL (who was retired) also had 8 hours a day of skilled nursing assistance, but he used to have the nurses do housework for him b/c he preferred to do all my MIL's care himself. They evidently were cool with it b/c despite their training I guess they'd just as soon wash dishes than change adult diapers.
Re. Cathy Seipp, I wonder if Amy knows anything about a project I heard mentioned shortly after she died, to collect some of her writings into an anthology? I miss her writing very much, too, and would love to know if there are any plans afoot to collect & publish it.
BerthaMinerva at February 21, 2008 11:33 AM
Lujulp, I've been covered by Tricare for going on six years: while I was Active Duty AF, and now as a Navy wife. It is THE biggest pain in the ass. No matter where we've been stationed, it takes literally weeks to be seen for pretty much everything...and stuff like PAP smears have to be scheduled three or four months in advance. Recently I came back to San Diego from Puget Sound with a nasty ear infection and a fever, and they couldn't get me an appointment anywhere for almost three weeks...there are almost a dozen separate military healthcare facilities in San Diego, just FYI. When I complained, they told me to go to the main military ER. Luckily, there's a sympathetic corpsman attached to my husband's unit, and he slipped me some antibiotics "under the table".
I agree that the current healthcare system is hopelessly broken...but I think that the socialized military medical system is even more frustrating. Ugh. I'm getting a headache just thinking about it... ;)
Sarah at February 21, 2008 11:35 AM
I have to agree with Sarah and Lujulp. I've worked in or around the military for 15 years now and I've never heard a single active-duty, dependent, or retired person covered by Tricare express a good opinion of it.
SeanH at February 21, 2008 12:09 PM
You want a tri care story, listen to mine. I was being medically discharged for fraying the tendons around my right knee. While going thru the out processing physicl they noticed a spot in my left lungs x ray.
I got a CAT scan right away - only because they were trying to get me out of the military.
According to the cross section it was a mass roughtly the size and shpape of a thumb. I was given three options
1. biposy then remove
2. wath to see if it grows then remove
3. skip to the end and just remove it
I chose option 3 as they planned on removing it no matter the results of the bioposy. The army chose option 1, I can only assume to give some guy practice.
Meanwhile I am told that given my age, general wellbeing, and health that it is probably cancer. I am further told that statisically speaking in someone my age that means testicular cancer.
I am then told I will get a biopsy in 4 weeks. FOUR WEEKS. I have just been told that in all likleyhood I have testicular cncer that has spread to my lungs and god knows where else, but they'll take a look in a month or so.
I spend the next 2 weeks on the phone every night calling up long lost relitives trying to find out exactly how many perople in my extended familly have died from cancer.
The army hauls me in and has some tech do an ultra sound of my testicles, which came back clean. The doctors say "great news, it isnt testicular, were thinking lymphoma"
I'm thinking 'great, so I just upgraded from eunich to possibly dead in a year or two'
The day of my biopsy arives, and they've decided to do a CAT scan guided needle biposy. The moron scraped my rib a few times before poking the mass.
Long story short, they couldnt get a sample and they suggested waiting another month and trying again.
I told the doctor there was no way in hell, that they were going to take it out immediatly or I was calling my senetor to come out and look at Fort Knox's hospital.
Luckily for me some idiot had accidentally dropped a dead, puss filled lung back into the open chest cavity of the guy it had just been pulled out of. Otherwise I dont think the threat would have carried much weight
They wound up removing about a third of my lower left lobe and it turned out to be an ohio river fungus of some type
lujlp at February 21, 2008 12:18 PM
Wow, lujlp, you win. I'm glad you wound up being okay.
When I separated from the AF, the managed to somehow "forget" my medical outprocessing, and then they lost me medical and dental records...but they gave me my original personnel record, which is something they're not really supposed to do. Sigh.
My husband was deployed to Afghanistan last year, and his in/outprocessing was done at Ft. Bragg. He came back home with more horror stories about Army hospitals than the actual war zone.
I really don't like TriCare.
Sarah at February 21, 2008 12:35 PM
Speaking of the VA system. Why can't we just give stipends to all the non-active duty military people(Including dependants) who qualify for govt health care and let them buy their own health insurance. That has to be cheaper than running the hundreds and hundreds of crappy VA hospitals. reducing the demand for govt healthcare resources could lead to better care for the active duty members. Privatize don't Socialize.
Sean at February 21, 2008 1:33 PM
The VA health-care system was created in 1930 as part of the massive, unconstitutional power grab called Progressivism.
Although, I never had a problem when I was in the military. They treated me fast and effectively if not friendly.
Jeff at February 21, 2008 2:32 PM
You basically have two choices: 1) You decide what care you get; 2) Someone else decides what care you get. Both of these are tied to money. Use your own, you get to say. Use somebody else's they get to say.
Is that clear?
And if that somebody takes the Hillarycare example, that somebody also gets you arrested for not doing what they said. Don't be so anxious for other people to pay for your care...
Radwaste at February 21, 2008 2:35 PM
i don't know if the solution to health care is socialized in some way or what, but right now we are spending far more (i used to know the numbers) per capita for health care than any other country, and still 47 million don't have any way to pay for it. people paying for their own health care out of pocket sounds nice, but i just had a CAT scan for my problematic girly parts which if my insurance refuses to pay for it, would probably take me 20 years to pay off, if ever, and i make decent money. not rich, but decent. what if i had cancer? or a kid with serious health problems? not very possible for the majority of people to pay it out of pocket.
and we're supposed to be the country with the smartest and most creative people on the planet, not sure i believe that, but who says we have to copy someone else's program? and who says if we adopt hillarycare - just as an example - we can't change it in a couple of years or whatever to work out some kinks? there has to be a change in health care soon or we'll all be in trouble.
kt at February 21, 2008 4:32 PM
I would argue, however, that socialized medicine is not necessarily more expensive.
Just home from France, and a little groggy, so I'll just respond to this above for now: It is more expensive if you get cancer, and need a drug for your care, or want to get an MRI in a reasonable amount of time, as opposed to five waiting five months.
PS Red meat is very good for you. The notion that it isn't is "science, not science. See Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes.
Amy Alkon at February 22, 2008 12:04 AM
You basically have two choices: 1) You decide what care you get; 2) Someone else decides what care you get. Both of these are tied to money. Use your own, you get to say. Use somebody else's they get to say.
Exactly.
Amy Alkon at February 22, 2008 12:05 AM
A few paragraphs from a timely article on the perils of putting the DMV in charge of health care.
Single Payer Systems Kill
"Before American voters embrace either Hillary Clinton’s universal-health scheme or Barack Obama’s somewhat less dirigiste single-payer proposal, they should consider the avoidable deaths that plague the mother of all state-run medical programs: Great Britain’s big-government National Health Service. Low-quality, taxpayer-funded health care killed more than 17,000 Britons in 2004, according to the TaxPayers’ Alliance in London."
"No one can complain that the NHS is underfinanced. This year’s budget is $210 billion -- about $1.05 trillion if adjusted to match America’s population. NHS funding climbed 221.7 percent between 1996 and 2006."
"Diseases snuff Britons sooner than they do others in the developed world. A September 2007 Lancet Oncology article found 66.3 percent of American men alive five years after cancer diagnosis. Among male Finns, that figure was 55.9 percent, while only 44.8 percent of Englishmen survived after five years. Across the European Union, 20.1 females per 100,000 under 65 died prematurely of circulatory disease. Among British women, that number was 23.6."
Curly Smith at February 22, 2008 6:17 AM
So Hillary is proposing to arrest people who don't want treatment? How about if we never go to a doctor unless something's wrong? I haven't been to a regular appointment in two years and argued with the doctor/refused treatment all the time?
On the aches and pains, flynne, x-rays have confirmed arthritis and two different foot problems. The foot is steroids and if they don't work surgery. I'm unwilling to risk either (in part because I have known people who've gone all the way through surgery and still have problems) unless I reach the point where I absolutely can't walk -- then we'll talk and, yes, I want all my options discussed. Doc wanted to prescribe Celebrex before it was recalled but I actually listen to the commercials and tucked in the middle (where I'm sure they hoped you wouldn't notice) was the one word death in the midst of side effects they're required to put in ads. I saw the commercial first time and couldn't believe they said death and listened to make sure I'd heard right the first time. Sure enough I had. Then doc wanted to prescribe for my arthritis and I said I'll let you know when I'm in so much pain I don't care if I die, not there yet. Then they recalled the shit and I felt pretty dang smart. I used over the counter too. It doesn't relieve all the pain but settles it down to a dull ache that I am so used to that I'm not sure what I'd do with the energy if it ever disappeared (which is not going to happen).
Thing is doc didn't even admit he was wrong. He was sorry it was recalled. That's when I said I better start looking for new doc but found their offices taking affront to my calling and asking questions about their approach to care so I procrastinated and he retired and I'm still procrastinating -- mostly because I don't trust modern health care at all and, frankly, I feel worse on my blood pressure medication than off it. I seem to have better luck reducing salt and losing weight. It's a gamble but off it I'm gambling my heart, on it, I'm gambling my liver and they have to keep doing blood tests to see if that side effect hit. I figure six of one, half a dozen of the other and I'd rather die quick of a heart attack than slow from liver problems. (And, yeah, I know I might not be that "lucky" but I'm choosing my gamble.)
Donna at February 22, 2008 7:04 AM
Donna, I can't fix what might be causing you to argue - as you put it - with your doctors, or procrastinate, but you damned sure aren't going to do anything but suffer sitting at home. There are pros in physical therapy and in surgery who can fix your physical problems, but only working with you.
I'm a big bike nut, and the roadracing world is nuts about Dr. Arthur Ting. You can read a blurb about him at this Roadracing World page.
Radwaste at February 22, 2008 10:21 AM
Leave a comment