Help me win a debate for free market health care!

[Raw Liver]

I'm having a debate on another, private forum about the free market and it has just gone on a tangent about health care. The other person is having trouble understanding how the free market can do a better job of covering everyone then the government can.

I read something somewhere once (that's about as specific about it as I can get right now) that had to do with the number of Americans covered by health insurance and the federal government's regulations on the industry.

This document mentioned that before congress began passing laws on health care, over 90% of Americans were covered by some type of health insurance and ever since the government became involved, coverage has steadily dropped due to the increase in premiums that are forced by the government regulations.

Does anyone know of this or a similar document that I can use to help win this debate? I'd really appreciate the help.

[Acala]

Lots of threads on this.

But I would start by identifying the problem. The problem is that health care is too expensive. Once you have narrowed the focus to the root problem, start solving it.

Why are health care costs too high? Prices are the result of supply and demand. When supply is resticted and demand stays the same, prices go up. When demand is stimulated and supply stays the same, prices go up. Are either of these things happening in health care? Let's look at supply first.

Is the supply of health care restricted? HELL YES!!! By pervasive government regulation at every level in the health care business. You can't so much as fart near a white coat without some kind of license. Virtually every health care profession, service provider, and product manufacturer faces huge entrance barriers and constant government regulatory expenses. Competition is stifled, alternatives are prohibited, and monopolies are protected. The supply of health care is being choked to death.

How about the demand? Demand is being heavily stimulated by government through direct subsidy (medicare, medicade, SS, etc.) and through tax incentives and restrictions that push employers to pay for health care.

So government is simultaneously choking off the supply and stimulating demand. This is why the cost of health care has increased at many times the rate of general prices. So now people can't afford it.

In summary, the problem with health care is that it costs too much. The reason it costs too much is because government has restricted supply and subsidized demand. The solution to the problem is to remove the restrictions on supply and remove the subisides that increase demand. Prices will normalize, the average person will be able to afford normal healthcare out of pocket and insurance for catastrophic illness. The poor will rely on charity. Problem solved.

[Raw Liver]

Oh wow I wasn't going in that direction at all but that's a great argument, thanks.

I was just posed with the question: "So were people really covered to begin with if they had "health insurance" that didn't cover them in all cases?" Referring to the period of time before government regulations on health care.

I really have no idea how to answer this. Obviously, no, they weren't covered, but wouldn't the free market provide them with options to cover those extra things that they needed covered?

[dannno]

Oh wow I wasn't going in that direction at all but that's a great argument, thanks.

I was just posed with the question: "So were people really covered to begin with if they had "health insurance" that didn't cover them in all cases?" Referring to the period of time before government regulations on health care.

I really have no idea how to answer this. Obviously, no, they weren't covered, but wouldn't the free market provide them with options to cover those extra things that they needed covered?

The reason some people aren't covered is because coverage costs are too high. By reducing the cost of care, you reduce the cost of coverage and more people can afford it. Those who still can't afford it can more easily be taken care of by others through charitable means or otherwise (including a minimal type of government safety net, which can be implemented at the state level and still be Constitutional).

The other real big problem in health care, which Acala touched on a little bit, was the corporatization of health care. Corporations are encouraged by government to pay for their employee's coverage through tax incentives. That gives a big incentive for everybody to be on a corporate health care plans so that portion of their income isn't taxed. Corporate health care plans are not priced based on an individual's health or well being, so there is no incentive to take care of your own health because your premiums will be the same as long as you stick with your company. If people knew they would have to pay more to live an unhealthy lifestyle, they would probably pay closer attention to their diet and physical activities voluntarily. This would create a healthier society.

Another big problem with corporate plans is that everybody ends up with full coverage because of the tax subsidy, they end up covered more than they need to be. Young, healthy individuals who might normally have a very small premium that only covers catastrophic incidents where they pay for their basic services out of pocket now have their basic services covered with their corporate plan. There is no competition in the medical industry because everybody just walks into an office and hands over their insurance card. If people were in charge of their own health care, there would be more competition in prices for health services. Between medicare/medicaid and corporate health plans, there is virtually no price competition in our current system and so prices go up.

[Acala]

Oh wow I wasn't going in that direction at all but that's a great argument, thanks.

I was just posed with the question: "So were people really covered to begin with if they had "health insurance" that didn't cover them in all cases?" Referring to the period of time before government regulations on health care.

I really have no idea how to answer this. Obviously, no, they weren't covered, but wouldn't the free market provide them with options to cover those extra things that they needed covered?

It is important to understand the purpose of REAL insurance to distinguish it from the monster into which government has perverted health insurance.

Insurance is a risk pooling device. Fire insurance makes a good example. The chances of your house burning down in any given year is very, very low. But if your house DID burn down, the cost to you would be high. Thousands of people are in your same situation - a very low risk of a high expense. The free market provides an answer. You all agree to pay into a fund and if any of your houses burn down, the fund pays for your house. Because the risk of any house burning down is low, no individual needs to pay in very much money to get full coverage for their house. So you pay a little each year and probably never get anything back. But if your house burns down, the fund replaces it. This is risk pooling. This is what insurance is supposed to do. It pays for the high price, low probability event.

Real health insurance would cover high cost, low probability events - like a young person having a heart attack. But a health plan that pays for routine health care and predictable costs is not insurance. It is not risk pooling. It is a subsidy.

Up until thirty years ago, people paid for most health care out of pocket and only had insurance for catastrophic expenses, if at all.

[Acala]

The reason some people aren't covered is because coverage costs are too high. By reducing the cost of care, you reduce the cost of coverage and more people can afford it. Those who still can't afford it can more easily be taken care of by others through charitable means or otherwise (including a minimal type of government safety net, which can be implemented at the state level and still be Constitutional).

The other real big problem in health care, which Acala touched on a little bit, was the corporatization of health care. Corporations are encouraged by government to pay for their employee's coverage through tax incentives. That gives a big incentive for everybody to be on a corporate health care plans so that portion of their income isn't taxed. Corporate health care plans are not priced based on an individual's health or well being, so there is no incentive to take care of your own health because your premiums will be the same as long as you stick with your company. If people knew they would have to pay more to live an unhealthy lifestyle, they would probably pay closer attention to their diet and physical activities voluntarily. This would create a healthier society.

Another big problem with corporate plans is that everybody ends up with full coverage because of the tax subsidy, they end up covered more than they need to be. Young, healthy individuals who might normally have a very small premium that only covers catastrophic incidents where they pay for their basic services out of pocket now have their basic services covered with their corporate plan. There is no competition in the medical industry because everybody just walks into an office and hands over their insurance card. If people were in charge of their own health care, there would be more competition in prices for health services. Between medicare/medicaid and corporate health plans, there is virtually no price competition in our current system and so prices go up.

Well said.

[GreenLP]

Real health insurance would cover high cost, low probability events - like a young person having a heart attack. But a health plan that pays for routine health care and predictable costs is not insurance. It is not risk pooling. It is a subsidy.
I have a question free-market health system that's never really been answered. How will a free-market system prevent insurances companies from doing all the sleazy things they can to try to drop certain policy holders once they get sick? This is one of the major reasons the country wants an overhaul.

[Acala]

I have a question free-market health system that's never really been answered. How will a free-market system prevent insurances companies from doing all the sleazy things they can to try to drop certain policy holders once they get sick? This is one of the major reasons the country wants an overhaul.

Insurance contracts are just that - contracts. Both sides make promises. Both sides have benefits and burdens. If either side fails to keep their promises, the courts will force them to pay the damages. Are you suggesting that insurance companies are breaching their contracts and not being required to pay damages?

In a free market, people selling insurance will do exactly what people selling any other product will do - try to attract customers by offering the best product at the lowest price. Nobody can say what the result will be. But we can say that it ALWAYS results in a better use of resources than a coercive system.

But to address your question more specifically, why should an insurance company not be able to end a contractual relationship when it wants to do so? You can. You like that freedom. Why would the seller of insurance not have the same freedom? Should people providing insurance be enslaved and forced to continue providing their service when they don't want to do so?

[fisharmor]

The reason some people aren't covered is because coverage costs are too high. By reducing the cost of care, you reduce the cost of coverage and more people can afford it.

Well, there's also the fact that we are in many cases required to have nonsense coverage.
For instance, I'd need to check since my employer changes insurance every 3 years, but I'm pretty sure I've always been covered for abortions and fertility treatments, and my wife has been covered for prostate problems.

Even if you look at the intent of those mandates as opposed to their ridiculous effect, you bump into the irrefutable facts that my wife will never - never - use an elective abortion or fertility treatments, and that I will not need coverage for prostate problems for decades.

So, if you want to talk about why some people aren't covered, I think we should first ask why some people are covered for some stuff that doesn't make a damned bit of sense, and other people are covered for things that they didn't ask for and will never use. These things take up back-end resources despite the fact that no service is being rendered. If neither of those things happened, there would be more resources to spread around.

[Zippyjuan]

It is a very complicated business with many factors influencing costs. Ironically, competition in insurance is one. Probably the largest portion of healthcare costs in the US is found in administration- the sorting through of all the paperwork involved. We have hundreds of different insurance companies with thousands of of different policies and coverages. Hospitals and medical providers can spend up to 40% of their money simply trying to sort, process, and file all the paperwork requirements for all the different plans. For each patient on each case, it has to determine what is covered, who to bill, and what sort of supporting information needs to be sent and to whom. In 1998, a survey showed that in the US this cost was three times what it was in Canada- which has a single payer and thus a greately simplified paperwork load. One third of the workers in healthcare are directly related to dealing with this mountain.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033


Results

In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada.

Between 1969 and 1999, the share of the U.S. health care labor force accounted for by administrative workers grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent. In Canada, it grew from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996. (Both nations' figures exclude insurance-industry personnel.)

[libertyjam]

Total healthcare costs could be reduced by over 50% just by operating in an intelligent and rational manner. I've given up on that happening though because collectively humans seem to be incapable of acting intelligently or rationally.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/doctor-hotspot/


Dr. Jeffrey Brenner is a local physician who some believe might have the model to solve one of America's most intractable problems: lowering the cost of health care. While analyzing medical billing data in Camden, N.J., he mapped out "hot spots" of the impoverished city's high-cost patients. By targeting unique care -- including home visits and social workers -- at the city's most costly patients, he developed a program that he argues has both lowered health care costs and provided better care in Camden. His organization, the Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers, and other similar models were the subject of a January 2011 feature in The New Yorker by journalist and physician Dr. Atul Gawande. Since then, Dr. Brenner's medical strategy has garnered considerable attention -- praised by some as a promising model worthy of more intense study and charged by others as a dangerous expansion of the health care system. But as Brenner tells FRONTLINE correspondent Gawande, "Better care for people is disruptive change." This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on May 13, 2011.

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/doctor-hotspot/#ixzz1TR1tpENl


[What does] American health care need to focus on and pay for?

American health care doesn't do a good job taking care of sick people. The way we built our system is really a system that's very hard to access.

...
... What's the cost of your team?

Two hundred twenty-five thousand dollars in a year. The most expensive patient that our team is caring for had $600,000 in hospital bills paid out over the last five years, and 43 of the patients we're caring for had $3 million in payments to the hospitals over the last five years. So the care right now for these folks is really expensive. So it's much cheaper to bring care to them and deliver better care than it is to have them keep going to the emergency room and hospital over and over.

How much has your team been able to lower the costs for this really expensive group of patients?

So we've seen some preliminary results of 40 to 50 percent reductions in visits and costs. And we're now --

Forty to 50 percent reduction in costs?

In costs and visits. And we're beginning to dive deeper into the data and have partnered with a research team to really pull this data apart and figure it out, and understand in more detail what are the cost drivers and how well is the project working.

Yeah, I'm sure trying to calculate exactly what the savings are is pretty tough. But your $225,000 team is saving millions for sure?

We think so, yeah. We think that we're pointing the way with this team to better care at lower costs by bringing care to patients in the community.

And this is not a new idea, by the way. There are wonderful projects around the country over the years that have done similar things. There's a program called PACE, Program for All-Inclusive Care [for] the Elderly, that is a similar, very proactive, very well-developed model of bringing care to frail, elderly patients that's demonstrated savings. There's another model for severely mentally ill patients called Assertive Community Treatment Team [ACTT] that brings better care right to the community for patients and saves money. So this isn't a new idea; we're just applying it in a different environment. …

… Your small investment of time up front is leading people to use the emergency room less, not show up in the hospitals. You're trying to get the hospitals to come along with you on this. Why is that going to work at all? You're taking away business that is their financial lifeblood. They want to keep the hospitals full, keep the emergency room going.

So the one part of the market share that all the hospitals are gladly willing to give up is complex homeless people who might have substance abuse histories or mental illness. So we went to a group of patients that everyone had given up on and that no one wants more of. …

As this kind of an experiment works, though, you're talking about dropping the number of hospital visits as a whole.

Yes.

You're talking about removing people from emergency rooms.

Yes.

They could have to shut down floors and beds.

Yes, yes.

They're not going to be with you on this, are they?

This kind of work is a game changer, and this is a Blockbuster Video moment for America's hospitals, and --

What do you mean by a Blockbuster Video moment?

So along comes Netflix, and Blockbuster Video has closed down stores all over the country, and there had to have been a moment somewhere when a young executive walked in and said, "Hey, they're starting to rent videos online," and Blockbuster said: "No, people like coming to the video store. We're not going to make any change. We've got a good business model, and it's working." So disruptive change comes along, and it can take a model and turn it on its head.

And I think better care for sick people is disruptive change. And if we scale this model up that we don't need as many hospital beds, we don't need as many specialists, that's a really big problem. We have an enormous political problem, which is if we want to balance the federal budget, if states are going to balance their budgets, if businesses aren't going to go bankrupt or drop health care coverage from the increase in costs, then we're going to have to deliver better care to sick people. And the impact of that is going to be big change. It's going to be fewer hospital beds, fewer hospitals and fewer specialists, and that's going to be a pretty big change. We have inflated a capacity bubble in our country to do expensive, high-tech, hospital-based care, and it's a little like the bubble we inflated for housing. At some point you inflate a bubble past its true need in society, and when we pop that bubble, it's going to be a very painful process.
...



Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/doctor-hotspot/#ixzz1TR3e9Jfr

[showpan]

Insurance contracts are just that - contracts. Both sides make promises. Both sides have benefits and burdens. If either side fails to keep their promises, the courts will force them to pay the damages. Are you suggesting that insurance companies are breaching their contracts and not being required to pay damages?

Do a search...lol...insurance companies are doing whatever they can to deny a claim, where have you been? Even when they do pay, they haggle with the doctors and hospitals to get the bill reduced often holding up the payment for months and longer. This simply gets passed on to the consumer since the doctor must raise his rate in order to offset the lack of payments and reduced payments. The driving force of health care costs are greedy insurance companies who have tripled and quadrupled their profits in the last few years by denying as many claims as they can. Even when the courts are asked to step in and resolve the issue, it is cheaper for them to hold this process up for as long as possible because many of the claimants will die before their case is resolved.

[Acala]

Total healthcare costs could be reduced by over 50% just by operating in an intelligent and rational manner. I've given up on that happening though because collectively humans seem to be incapable of acting intelligently or rationally.



And if my mother had wings she could be a SCRAMJET.

As long as healthcare is paid for by third parties - government and insurance companies - and controlled by government which is, in turn, controlled by the medical industries, there is no incentive to cut costs. Indeed, the opposite incentive has been in play for thirty years or more.

Government needs to be out of healthcare entirely! At every level.

[showpan]

Total healthcare costs could be reduced by over 50% just by operating in an intelligent and rational manner. I've given up on that happening though because collectively humans seem to be incapable of acting intelligently or rationally.

I just watched PBS the other night when they did the segment on Dr. Brenner and his "hotspots". It was very fascinating and I would be willing to bet that most hospitals and insurance companies know this information already but have no interest in killing their cash cow.

[Acala]

Do a search...lol...insurance companies are doing whatever they can to deny a claim, where have you been? Even when they do pay, they haggle with the doctors and hospitals to get the bill reduced often holding up the payment for months and longer. This simply gets passed on to the consumer since the doctor must raise his rate in order to offset the lack of payments and reduced payments. The driving force of health care costs are greedy insurance companies who have tripled and quadrupled their profits in the last few years by denying as many claims as they can. Even when the courts are asked to step in and resolve the issue, it is cheaper for them to hold this process up for as long as possible because many of the claimants will die before their case is resolved.

Got a citation to support your contention about profit margins?

I'm not saying it isn't true, since the whole industry is in bed with government, but I am not convinced by rants without facts.

Nor am I interested in anecdotes.

So tell me how does insurance company greed drive UP the cost of health care itself? How does an insurance company trying to LOWER medical bills actually raise them?

I'm not seeing much in the way of economics in your argument here. Just some populist blamestorming.

Prices in health care are just like prices anywhere else - controlled by supply and demand. So walk me through the supply/demand argument for you claim.

[Zippyjuan]

Who in the healthcare industry has an interest in keeping the costs low? A person with insurance has no real incentive- they don't directly pay the costs of their treatment so have no incentive to inquire about lower cost alternatives. They usually want the best (which of course is more expensive). People would rather go to the doctor and have a medicine prescribed when an over the counter remedy (or sometimes just rest) can take care of the problem at considerably lower cost. The costs are in hidden in the premiums- and often, those are paid for by others (employers though more and more are cutting back on that or even getting rid of it) or the government so patients don't get exposed to just what they are consuming is really costing. This leads to excess demands and excessive costs.

Does the insurance company have an incentive to keep costs low? Yes- but as long as they can collect more in premiums than they pay out in coverage, they are pretty happy. Doctors? No real incentive there. More tests or proceedures means more money for them. More tests also procects them from costly malpractice lawsuits if they missed a diagnosis. The demand is practically limitless.

I have heard some complaints that insurance programs or a national insurance program would "limit" medical coverage for some people. Well, without any insurance (government or private), medicine is even more rationed- only those who can afford it can get treated.

[GreenLP]

Do a search...lol...insurance companies are doing whatever they can to deny a claim, where have you been?
+1

[Acala]

+1

That hasn't been my experience at all. But, in any event, insurance companies are entitled by the terms of their contract to deny some claims. Would you change that? Insurance fraud is rampant and guess who pays for it? Not the insurance company executives. YOU do. I personally want my insurance company to deny illegitimate claims because it saves ME money. If people want to buy insurance from a company that pays all claims, let them pay the premiums that go with it.

Insurance against calamity is not a RIGHT. It is a service you buy on the market. If you don't like the terms, shop somewhere else.

Of course, government interference has screwed this up, but it isn't "greedy" insurance companies that are at fault. If your economic model doesn't accomodate greed, you are screwed.

[GreenLP]

That hasn't been my experience at all. But, in any event, insurance companies are entitled by the terms of their contract to deny some claims. Would you change that? Insurance fraud is rampant and guess who pays for it? Not the insurance company executives. YOU do. I personally want my insurance company to deny illegitimate claims because it saves ME money. If people want to buy insurance from a company that pays all claims, let them pay the premiums that go with it.

Insurance against calamity is not a RIGHT. It is a service you buy on the market. If you don't like the terms, shop somewhere else.

Of course, government interference has screwed this up, but it isn't "greedy" insurance companies that are at fault. If your economic model doesn't accomodate greed, you are screwed.
These insurance companies are cutting off existing members to increase their profits. It's GREED. How will the free-market remedy that?

[Acala]

These insurance companies are cutting off existing members to increase their profits. It's GREED. How will the free-market remedy that?

What do you mean "members"? Buying an insurance policy doesn't give you some kind of lifetime claim to services, does it? You buy an insurance contract and it has a specific term. You can cancel your policy and not pay anymore whenever you like. So can the insurance company. Or do you think they should be obligated to give you free medical care for life because you bought a policy from them once?

Insurance is a risk-pooling business. If you become a bad risk I don't want you in my pool anymore because you cost too much. This is why, given a choice, I would not buy insurance from a company that insures smokers, motorcycle riders, the obese, etc. Also, if you make too many claims, or try to defraud the pool, I don't want you in my risk pool. Unfortunately government restricts much market functioning in the insurance industry so these choices are not available.

If you are high risk you might not be able to get insurance in a free market. That is unfortunate, but you don't have a "right" to insurance and you shouldn't be able to make me underwrite your risks if I don't want to do so.

Saying "greed greed greed" is just name calling. Please answer substantively. Greed is a moral failing and it is not the business of the marketplace or government to correct it. And profit is a good thing. It is a natural and useful market function.

[Birdlady]

There's another facet to all of this that hasn't been touched upon probably because a lot of you don't believe that evil people are trying to hurt us. If we were not being fed GMO foods, given vaccinations with who knows what in them and exposed to other chemicals in our daily lives, maybe some of us wouldn't be so sick with chronic issues. It is the chronic issues that make health care costs so expensive. This isn't talked about though. Only things like heart attacks, strokes and cancers. Also we have NO preventative care in this country. Going to the doctor to have him listen to your lungs is not preventative care. It is just a nice way to get you in the office to prescribe more pills in my experience. When you actually have something wrong with you that is not the usual (skin rash, cough, flu or UTI), they dismiss you entirely.

I'm going on 11 years of trying to figure out what is wrong with me (well I know what is wrong but not the underlying cause) and I have no doubt it is due to some sort of environmental toxin or trigger. I'm young too so don't think I'm just "getting old". I have cost my insurance so much money with all of the testing I have had done to try and figure out what is wrong. Yet they can't find anything wrong... so what's a person supposed to do in this case? Free market doesn't work here because we are purposely being poisoned. I have medical bills piling up.

[Acala]

There's another facet to all of this that hasn't been touched upon probably because a lot of you don't believe that evil people are trying to hurt us. If we were not being fed GMO foods, given vaccinations with who knows what in them and exposed to other chemicals in our daily lives, maybe some of us wouldn't be so sick with chronic issues. It is the chronic issues that make health care costs so expensive. This isn't talked about though. Only things like heart attacks, strokes and cancers. Also we have NO preventative care in this country. Going to the doctor to have him listen to your lungs is not preventative care. It is just a nice way to get you in the office to prescribe more pills in my experience. When you actually have something wrong with you that is not the usual (skin rash, cough, flu or UTI), they dismiss you entirely.

I'm going on 11 years of trying to figure out what is wrong with me (well I know what is wrong but not the underlying cause) and I have no doubt it is due to some sort of environmental toxin or trigger. I'm young too so don't think I'm just "getting old". I have cost my insurance so much money with all of the testing I have had done to try and figure out what is wrong. Yet they can't find anything wrong... so what's a person supposed to do in this case? Free market doesn't work here because we are purposely being poisoned. I have medical bills piling up.

In addition to government interference driving up costs, it also reduces quality of service AND dramatically curtails innovation and alternatives. In fact, government makes many alternatives illegal outright.

And, although it is off the topic, I agree that government intervention in other areas of the economy helps promote unhealthy living. BUT, you still have the choice to live a healthy life. You can avoid industrial foods and instead eat organic, pastured, locally grown food. You can also take responsibility for your own healing. Blaming environmental toxins and expecting doctors to heal you is, in my observation, a road to endless failure and heartbreak. Taking responsibility for your own healing means diet, exercise, lifestyle, AND healing the stress-induced nervous system damage most of us suffer with.

[pcosmar]

Covering Everyone?

from the OP,,,

The other person is having trouble understanding how the free market can do a better job of covering everyone then the government can.

What gives anyone the idea that a service (Product) is required for "everyone". Or that the Government or the market should provide it for everyone.
It a Home and property required for everyone?
Should a Car and the fuel to run it be required? Should it be provided by Government?

Is having this service a "RIGHT" ? If it is,,
Then the Government should provide firearms to every person in the country. We have a right to bear arms.

I do not understand how people don't get this.

[Birdlady]

Ok so if it isn't environmental toxins, then why would a 16 year old go from being completely normal to disabled? The damage has been done. Avoiding it now is great and everything, but it doesn't help fix what has been damaged...

What 16 year olds do you know worry about how they are going to feel when they stand up or fall down in the heat? Those who say the things you have said to me are those who either have never been sick or have been sick with something minor, did one thing and you have been cured ever since. Good for you. I'm jealous. I am not a simple case at all and have been spending most of my life trying to figure out ways to get better. I am not at all lazy or depending upon doctors. I go to them to get tests done to see what I can do to be less disabled at times. I've been mostly disabled from age 16 to 27.

I research every day. I try new supplements all the time. I go out of my way to try and fix me. Not everything is fixed with diet, lifestyle and exercise plans. I tried that about 6 years ago andit did nothing for me. Do you have suggestions on what I could try to "heal the nervous system damage". I am all ears! Since it's so easy and everything... :)

Also I'm not for govt healthcare btw. Just playing devil's advocate here. There is a lot more to why healthcare costs are so high than what was being said in this thread (supply and demand). They are killing us on purpose. Being sick is more profitable than being healthy. Insurance companies, doctors, pharmaceutical companies have no incentive in making us healthy. It is a flawed model that can never be fixed.


In addition to government interference driving up costs, it also reduces quality of service AND dramatically curtails innovation and alternatives. In fact, government makes many alternatives illegal outright.

And, although it is off the topic, I agree that government intervention in other areas of the economy helps promote unhealthy living. BUT, you still have the choice to live a healthy life. You can avoid industrial foods and instead eat organic, pastured, locally grown food. You can also take responsibility for your own healing. Blaming environmental toxins and expecting doctors to heal you is, in my observation, a road to endless failure and heartbreak. Taking responsibility for your own healing means diet, exercise, lifestyle, AND healing the stress-induced nervous system damage most of us suffer with.

[Acala]

Ok so if it isn't environmental toxins, then why would a 16 year old go from being completely normal to disabled? The damage has been done. Avoiding it now is great and everything, but it doesn't help fix what has been damaged... .

I never said it wasn't environmental toxins. I said blaiming environmental toxins and seeking a cure from doctors does not, in my observation, lead to healing. Your case merely proves my point. As to what may have caused the problem, I have no idea but there are numerous possibilities. I obviously don't have enough information to even take a guess.


What 16 year olds do you know worry about how they are going to feel when they stand up or fall down in the heat? Those who say the things you have said to me are those who either have never been sick or have been sick with something minor, did one thing and you have been cured ever since. Good for you. I'm jealous. I am not a simple case at all and have been spending most of my life trying to figure out ways to get better. I am not at all lazy or depending upon doctors. I go to them to get tests done to see what I can do to be less disabled at times. I've been mostly disabled from age 16 to 27..

What did I say that you found offensive?


Not everything is fixed with diet, lifestyle and exercise plans. ..

True. But a good diet, healthy lifestyle, and exercise never hurt.


I tried that about 6 years ago andit did nothing for me...

A healthy lifestyle is not something you "try" and then give up because it didn't result in a miracle cure. It is a permanent approach to life.


Do you have suggestions on what I could try to "heal the nervous system damage". I am all ears! Since it's so easy and everything... :)

I do have suggestions, but they aren't easy.


They are killing us on purpose.

Who is killing you and how?

I sense a huge amount of emotional pain wrapped up in this. And that in itself is harmful to your health.

[Birdlady]

I took offense to your implying that I am not trying to get myself better. That I'm just sitting around waiting for doctors to cure me. You have no idea what I've been through and have tried over the years. I have fixed certain aspects of my health, but I'm still mostly disabled.

I love how you avoided the comment about you not being sick. I take that as a yes and you come into a health forum with theory that you think will work. I can tell you a lot of the theory that is out there does not work for people. It sounds great on paper, but if you actually try it, nothing happens. Once again you are implying that I am lazy, of course I still eat and live a healthy lifestyle. I NEVER stopped from 6 years ago. Do you think in 6 years time I'd have noticed improvements?

I do lots of stuff that "isn't easy". Once again implying that I'm lazy. Thanks for being a jerk. Maybe you should have some compassion for people instead of pointing the finger and blaming them for being ill. Sometimes it is not our fault for waking up one day and never being the same again. What goes around comes around.

Oh I missed who is hurting me. Whoever pressured my family to give me vaccines and whoever in their right mind thought putting amalgam mercury fillings in children's mouth was a good idea.

[Acala]

I took offense to your implying that I am not trying to get myself better. That I'm just sitting around waiting for doctors to cure me. You have no idea what I've been through and have tried over the years. I have fixed certain aspects of my health, but I'm still mostly disabled.

I love how you avoided the comment about you not being sick. I take that as a yes and you come into a health forum with theory that you think will work. I can tell you a lot of the theory that is out there does not work for people. It sounds great on paper, but if you actually try it, nothing happens. Once again you are implying that I am lazy, of course I still eat and live a healthy lifestyle. I NEVER stopped from 6 years ago. Do you think in 6 years time I'd have noticed improvements?

I do lots of stuff that "isn't easy". Once again implying that I'm lazy. Thanks for being a jerk. Maybe you should have some compassion for people instead of pointing the finger and blaming them for being ill. Sometimes it is not our fault for waking up one day and never being the same again. What goes around comes around.

Oh I missed who is hurting me. Whoever pressured my family to give me vaccines and whoever in their right mind thought putting amalgam mercury fillings in children's mouth was a good idea.

I did not intend to imply any of the things you have taken from my comments. And I apologize if I have offended you. Best of luck with your illness.

[TCE]

I took offense to your implying that I am not trying to get myself better. That I'm just sitting around waiting for doctors to cure me. You have no idea what I've been through and have tried over the years. I have fixed certain aspects of my health, but I'm still mostly disabled.

I love how you avoided the comment about you not being sick. I take that as a yes and you come into a health forum with theory that you think will work. I can tell you a lot of the theory that is out there does not work for people. It sounds great on paper, but if you actually try it, nothing happens. Once again you are implying that I am lazy, of course I still eat and live a healthy lifestyle. I NEVER stopped from 6 years ago. Do you think in 6 years time I'd have noticed improvements?

I do lots of stuff that "isn't easy". Once again implying that I'm lazy. Thanks for being a jerk. Maybe you should have some compassion for people instead of pointing the finger and blaming them for being ill. Sometimes it is not our fault for waking up one day and never being the same again. What goes around comes around.

Oh I missed who is hurting me. Whoever pressured my family to give me vaccines and whoever in their right mind thought putting amalgam mercury fillings in children's mouth was a good idea.

I completely understand where you're coming from. My mom is currently going through the same thing: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?261266-Mom-Diagnosed-with-ALS-%28Lou-Gehrig-s-Disease%29...Help&p=3340574&viewfull=1#post3340574

Complete thread here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?261266-Mom-Diagnosed-with-ALS-%28Lou-Gehrig-s-Disease%29...Help


I will disagree with you on one point, though. The free market would be able to prevent all of the additives, vaccines, etc, it is in fact because we have a corporatist system currently that all of this is allowed to go on. The FDA is paid off to look the other way when dangerous drugs and additives are added to the consumer markets. Just look at the story of Donald Rumsfeld and Aspartame. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html) He got his buddies to get it approved even when it was clear to everyone it was toxic.

In 1986 Reagan signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act which made it so that vaccine manufacturers would not be liable for any injuries they caused. Is it any coincidence that vaccines, since then, are given at such a high clip? High fructose corn syrup is subsidized by the federal government because it is made of corn. The list goes on and on and on. In a free market, virtually none of these things would exist and the companies producing them would be out of business.

[Birdlady]

Thanks TCE for understanding. The other guy has obviously never had anything serious wrong with him and thinks just changing your diet is everyone's cure. Well it's not that easy. He has no idea how incredibly blessed he is to have a body that can put up with all of the toxins we are exposed to on a daily basis.

I'm sorry to hear about your mom. That is really just awful. :( I know very little about ALS, but what I always tell people is look at your metal and environmental exposures during your life. I have high levels of mercury, tin and lead in my body. I am working on getting those out right now. In addition to that, I am looking into getting phosphatidylcholine IV's. These can help detox the nervous system and I think have been used in those with ALS. Look into these. Chelation and these other IV's the costs add up, so I'm doing 1 thing at time right now. Thankfully my doctor is really open minded and pretty much lets me do whatever I want. I bring in research, he reads it and we try it out. Nothing has worked so far though. I have been seeing him for about 3-4 years now. We have tried soo many things too... You just have to keep going until something eventually works!

Also I don't actually believe in govt. healthcare. Just playing devil's advocate. Here's my problem with it all though. If we were to have free market healthcare, then we'd have to remember there are millions out there who are sick from the old system. Do you just let them rot and suffer? Many people with my condition cannot work even at a young age (POTS usually affects young women in their early 20's), so do you just let them go homeless? This is where I don't know what the right answer is, but for those who are healthy, they don't ever look at things like this. They think everything is great and turn the other way when they hear of stories where someone is very sick. They just like to blame the person who is sick for not trying hard enough. Some people have had the deck stacked against them.

I know all about aspartame, vaccines, HFCS and many many other things. It is a sick joke to them.


I completely understand where you're coming from. My mom is currently going through the same thing: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?261266-Mom-Diagnosed-with-ALS-%28Lou-Gehrig-s-Disease%29...Help&p=3340574&viewfull=1#post3340574

Complete thread here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?261266-Mom-Diagnosed-with-ALS-%28Lou-Gehrig-s-Disease%29...Help

I will disagree with you on one point, though. The free market would be able to prevent all of the additives, vaccines, etc, it is in fact because we have a corporatist system currently that all of this is allowed to go on. The FDA is paid off to look the other way when dangerous drugs and additives are added to the consumer markets. Just look at the story of Donald Rumsfeld and Aspartame. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html) He got his buddies to get it approved even when it was clear to everyone it was toxic.

In 1986 Reagan signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act which made it so that vaccine manufacturers would not be liable for any injuries they caused. Is it any coincidence that vaccines, since then, are given at such a high clip? High fructose corn syrup is subsidized by the federal government because it is made of corn. The list goes on and on and on. In a free market, virtually none of these things would exist and the companies producing them would be out of business.

[TCE]

Thanks TCE for understanding. The other guy has obviously never had anything serious wrong with him and thinks just changing your diet is everyone's cure. Well it's not that easy. He has no idea how incredibly blessed he is to have a body that can put up with all of the toxins we are exposed to on a daily basis.

I'm sorry to hear about your mom. That is really just awful. :( I know very little about ALS, but what I always tell people is look at your metal and environmental exposures during your life. I have high levels of mercury, tin and lead in my body. I am working on getting those out right now. In addition to that, I am looking into getting phosphatidylcholine IV's. These can help detox the nervous system and I think have been used in those with ALS. Look into these. Chelation and these other IV's the costs add up, so I'm doing 1 thing at time right now. Thankfully my doctor is really open minded and pretty much lets me do whatever I want. I bring in research, he reads it and we try it out. Nothing has worked so far though. I have been seeing him for about 3-4 years now. We have tried soo many things too... You just have to keep going until something eventually works!

It sounds like you have a great doctor which is an amazing resource, especially someone who works with you. We have been trying a myriad of everything for over five years and have found literally one thing - Glucosamine/Chondroitin/MSM that actually helps. It's insane. I was going to respond in greater depth here, but as you bumped my original topic, I will post it there for the sake of organization.


Also I don't actually believe in govt. healthcare. Just playing devil's advocate. Here's my problem with it all though. If we were to have free market healthcare, then we'd have to remember there are millions out there who are sick from the old system. Do you just let them rot and suffer? Many people with my condition cannot work even at a young age (POTS usually affects young women in their early 20's), so do you just let them go homeless? This is where I don't know what the right answer is, but for those who are healthy, they don't ever look at things like this. They think everything is great and turn the other way when they hear of stories where someone is very sick. They just like to blame the person who is sick for not trying hard enough. Some people have had the deck stacked against them.

I know all about aspartame, vaccines, HFCS and many many other things. It is a sick joke to them.

Now that is an amazing, amazing question. On one hand, I wouldn't want the government divvying up money to people affected by these chemicals for two reasons. One, they can only pay it in tax dollars, and the country as a whole should not be taxed for the harm caused by a few. Two, the people who actually caused the damage should be the ones to pay.

In an ideal world, the people at the very top who knew what they were doing - manufacturers of vaccines, Dr. Paul Offit, the heads of Merck and other drug companies, the heads of the FDA, Donald Rumsfeld and so on would be forced to compensate every last person affected by their monstrosities, but obviously that will never happen.

[Birdlady]

Hmm it looks like sulfur donors are helping your mother. You should definitely research this more. It could be heavy metals if that is the case, but I'm sure there is much more to it than that. I have taken MSM regularly before too but can't say I actually felt something from it.

That was a good answer TCE. I agree, the ones who harmed should be who has to pay. It would be in the billions no doubt at this point.