The 'Aborted Baby' of The Health Care Debate
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
2017-05-10 12:29 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 366 references Ignore this thread
The 'Aborted Baby' of The Health Care Debate
[Comments enabled]  

The topic line says it all.  It's the way both sides of the political aisle shut down discussion on any particular topic they don't want to have a civilized debate on, especially when money is involved and someone's scamming someone else.

Take the abortion issue generally.  What always comes out at a pro-life march?  Photos of an aborted fetus.

Why? Because it's guaranteed to nail the emotional response button and as soon as you accomplish that rational debate and discussion on any public policy matter ends.

Where did it start this time?  With a TV host who made an issue out his newborn kid that had a congenital problem and required immediate and very expensive surgery to correct.  He waved the aborted fetus picture and got Obama to chime in immediately on Obamacare and the AHCA.

Then I had a guy who ran that same crap in the thread on my reform bill proposal.  I banhammered him and explained why -- I simply will not tolerate the waving of "aborted fetus pictures" on any topic here and his was one of the most-egregious examples I'd seen in my time writing The Ticker.

So let's analyze the root of these issues in the context of health care, without waving said pictures around.  Be warned, however, if you choose to comment: I don't do the aborted fetus thing and if you try it you'll get banhammered too.  Keep the discussion on policy rather than trying to play the "emotional" game and you'll be fine.

These issues all turn on what are called "pre-existing conditions", for the most part.  All of them are very expensive in our current medical system.  About 5% of the population have them in the most-serious (expensive) form at any given point in time but a quarter of the population (and that estimate may be low) has them in some form or fashion in a means that may not be ruinously expensive now but it will be later.  For the purpose of health insurance how you wound up in that 5% or 25% does not matter -- only that you are if in the 5%, or are very likely if in the 25%.  The former will preclude you from being insurable under any rational system because the probability of the bad event is 1.0; it already happened.  The latter will radically increase the cost of being insurable under any rational system because the probability of the bad event approaches 1.0; that is, while it didn't happen yet it is nearly-certain to do so.  Think of the latter case as being similar to trying to buy house insurance while under a hurricane warning -- there's no guarantee you will get trashed but no insurance company will ever write such a policy because the risk of damage is so high that they'd be crazy to do so.

These issues come in three basic forms distinguished by how and why they occurred.  Let's enumerate them:

  • Chronic and expensive conditions that are a result of either lifestyle choice or bad luck and which can be relieved or eliminated through a lifestyle change.  Type II diabetes is the poster child for this group and I've written an article on the issue called "The Low-Hanging Fruit" for that reason.  For scale that's about a quarter of all Medicare and Medicaid spending today -- an utterly monstrous amount of money that, were it to cease, would almost balance the federal budget on a perpetual forward basis standing alone.

  • Chronic and expensive conditions that are a result of lifestyle choice but cannot be relieved through lifestyle changes after the fact.  There are a huge number of conditions for which this applies, including drug or alcohol abuse that has resulted in severe body malfunctions (e.g. cirrhosis, cancer, etc), lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease or strokes as a result of smoking, HIV contracted due to consensual anal sex or IV drug use, the majority of cases of Hepatitis-C (same), destroyed hips as a result of being 200lbs overweight and more.  These are all disorders and diseases for which the person involved was responsible for the condition but can't fix or materially improve it by changing their lifestyle now, although they certainly could prevent or reduce future harm were they to cease whatever they were doing.

  • Chronic and expensive conditions that are the result of bad luck.  We all get one draw at the genetic lottery.  Some of us get a great draw, most of us get an "ok" draw with a few bad spots mixed in, and some get a really crappy draw.  The kid born with hemophilia, a genetic heart defect, Down's -- all are examples.  There are plenty that come along later in life too although many are not obvious.  It used to be that virtually anyone with periodontal disease or a high cavity rate (leading ultimately to root canals and tooth loss) was accused of failing to brush and floss.  We now know that's false; a huge percentage of the people who have such problems in fact got a bad genetic draw and even with perfect oral hygiene they're likely to have major problems down the road.

I separate this into three subdebates for a reason, but as a group all three of these are something that a large percentage of the population -- somewhere around one quarter of all persons in the country -- will fall under at some point in their life, with about 5% of the population under the most-severe (in terms of expense) forms of one of the above in the present tense.

The basic issue with all three is that all are flatly unaffordable under our current medical system.  None are "acute" situations (e.g. a broken leg, a car accident, etc.)

There is a further division found in the latter two of the above categories -- whether there is any rational expectation that the condition, even with the most-aggressive treatment, will ever be remedied.

For a huge percentage of the sufferers in the second two categories the answer is no.  If you have MS you will always have MS.  You might control it, at least for a while, but it will never go away.  The same is true for the person with Downs; they will always have Downs.  Ditto for hemophilia.  There are many such disorders and diseases; hell, even Lyme can fall into this category and while many cases are preventable not all are. 

One person with such a disorder who goes to work for the hypothetical company with 100 employees can destroy the salary prospects for everyone who works there permanently.  Take the person with MS that has a $70,000 drug they need to take to control their condition.  If they're hired by an employer with 100 employees that person will literally steal about $1,000 a year from every other employee in the firm for as long as they work there.  Why?  Because with overhead that $70,000 drug is about $100 large and the company will be forced to pay it in the form of medical insurance premium increases.  This means they will be forced to reduce the salaries paid to everyone else by, on average, about $1,000 a year!

What's even worse is that the employer is forced to conspire with the applicant to screw his or her employees!  It is illegal for an employer to discriminate on this basis and as a result they are actively engaged in stealing the money necessary for that person's treatment from everyone else on their roster and there is nothing they can do about it. In very severe situations this can actually force a company out of business entirely, at which point everyone winds up out of a job.

This is why "single payer", incidentally, can't -- and won't -- work.  A "single payer" system provides no incentive for any drug or medical company to figure out any way to reduce that cost -- in fact, it provides the exact opposite incentive because everyone gets the treatment!  Single-payer in any form always leads to rationing and the least-able to be paraded around on TV as "victims" are the first to be left out in the cold without a jacket to die.  Governments are brutal in this regard because they're faceless; witness the fact that everyone "hates" Congress but keeps voting to send their particular Congressperson back to their office!

Let me say this again just in case you missed it in the last paragraph: Single payer will kill 30 million Americans within five years of enactment because government will simply make a list of disorders and diseases sorted by cost and "aborted fetus" factor and draw the line at a point where the cost is high and the "swing the baby" factor is low.  Anyone with a disease or disorder below the line will have their care denied and will die.  Government won't do this because it's "mean", it will do this because without immediate and continuing collapse in cost the government itself will be unable to fund not only the medical system but the lights in the Capitol.

 A "no insurance" system (at all, at any price) on the other hand provides an incentive for firms to come up with a treatment people can afford to pay because otherwise they die and thus spend zero on health care (or anything else) in the future.  Leave the social side of this alone for a minute and it's quite clear what happens to cost if you give someone a blank check -- and this is demonstrated repeatedly in the real world by the skyrocketing price of chronic disease drugs and treatments.  Obamacare has made this much worse; witness the ratcheting up of Epipens, asthma medications and similar over the last eight years despite the so-called "underpayment" by Medicare and Medicaid that providers continually bleat about.

I'll just take one example: Epipens.  You may or may not know this but epinephrine, the drug in those pens, costs literal pennies.  A (large) vial intended for veterinary use can be purchased over the counter for under $25.  A 1mg ampule intended for "individual" use (1mg/ml) on humans can be bought for under $5 but requires a prescription.  Diabetic-style syringes cost pennies each.  Note that the usual Epipen dose is 0.3mg which means one "individual" ampule contains about 3 doses; the per-dose cost including the syringe is about $2.00!

It is only the lack of competitive pressure that leads people to be able to charge 100x the retail cost of the supplies for these things, and providing them under 'insurance' just makes the problem worse.  If they had to sell them for cash Epipens would be $10 while the company would still make a 500% margin over the cost of the materials for packaging and similar.

For those people in the above three categories the first can be handled quite-effectively by simply cutting them off if they won't make the required lifestyle change.

There is no answer in any form of public support for the second and third groups.  The only means by which we can resolve that problem in the intermediate and longer term is to stop enabling people to steal a never-ending cost-spiral from others.  If we do that then companies will be forced to compete and find ways to treat these conditions at prices people can individually afford to pay for in cash because the alternative to doing so is that they will sell nothing.

When you wave the dead fetus around what you are doing is enforcing theft against millions of others.  You are destroying businesses on purpose by trashing their ability to pay their employees competitive wages because someone with a high-cost condition joins their staff.  If you keep this up for long enough you will keep screaming until the government puts in place single-payer at which point the government will be unable to pay and thus will draw that line on the list of diseases and conditions which will kill millions of Americans outright.

There is one -- and only one -- answer: We must break the monopolies and enforce existing law.

If everyone has to pay the same price for the same drug or procedure then the only way a company can make money is to provide solutions to problems at a price people can afford to pay.  The 0.1% are, in fact, 0.1%!  If you can't market your drug, device or procedure to the vast majority of the population of the nation because they can't afford to buy it then in the medical field you have no market at all since these are not "aspirational" or "luxury" purchases and if the only person who can afford your product is Bill Gates you effectively have no market at all.

This is what it comes down to folks, and if we are to make progress we must stomp on any who try to play a wave the dead fetus game -- whether it be politically, in the media or our social circles.

The continuation of our way of life along with the operation of our federal and state governments depend on it.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
The Bill To Permanently Fix Health Care For All

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last
User Info The 'Aborted Baby' of The Health Care Debate in forum [Market-Ticker]
Marquiri
Posts: 25
Incept: 2015-02-24

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Well said Karl, as always. Question is, how do we break the monopolies? We can write to the talking heads and members of Congress until we're blue in the face, but it seems to accomplish nothing. Maybe a better question is, what can each of us, as subscribers to this site, do on a day-to-day basis to make a difference?
Feedsthebears
Posts: 5
Incept: 2010-06-10

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Karl,

I humbly disagree that single-payer can't work. I'm Canadian.
What we have isn't perfect, but it works fairly well.
It's under stress and it sure as hell isn't free, but it ain't bad in my experience.
The statistical measures (cost per capita and life expectancy) are good as well.
It's interesting that Trump seems to be taking a shine to it.

Try it, I think you'd like it.

Tickerguy
Posts: 148666
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
The statistical measures (cost per capita and life expectancy) are good as well.

Actually, they're not. Better than us is not "good".
Quote:
Try it, I think you'd like it.

I'd rather not die if I fall below the cutoff line with no options.

----------
Winding it down.
Village-idjit
Posts: 591
Incept: 2010-06-09

B'ham WA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Feedsthebears...respectfully, I'll pass on the Value Added Tax, Provincial Taxes, high Property Taxes, and high Income Taxes needed to fund Socialized Medicine.

Karl's recipe of Price Transparency, equal pricing for ALL customers, enforcement of Anti Trust, Anti Collusion, Anti Competition EXISTING LAWS obviates any need for government run health care. Normal medical procedures would then become AFFORDABLE in cash for most Americans. Catastrophic coverage would be affordable for those serious possible health issues. Karl has written a lot of Tickers expounding on this, perhaps a review might be useful.
Flyanddive
Posts: 2129
Incept: 2008-10-10

Detroit
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Don't forget the artificial supply restrictions on actual doctors. The medical schools restrict applicants to keep salaries high.

----------
"I've seen people go into real poverty trying to pretend to be rich."
Onelegged
Posts: 431
Incept: 2009-11-13

NW Colorado
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
idjit, I've had hours-long discussions with my English father-in-law about taxes. Sounds like you are repeating what Fox News had programmed you to repeat. Kool-aid is now served.

Karl, once again, how dare you bring the .357 Sig Glock of logic to a Q-tip fight?

Party on all!

----------
The light at the end of this tunnel is a train and it's gathering speed.
Tickerguy
Posts: 148666
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Funny how few people want to take me on in this area of the debate isn't it?

Gee you don't think that's why CNBS and Congress haven't called, do you?

----------
Winding it down.
Village-idjit
Posts: 591
Incept: 2010-06-09

B'ham WA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
OneLegged, actually I think Feedthebears said he was Canadian. My response came directly from discussions with my Canadian friends who live in British Columbia. I used to live in Bellingham WA (very near the Canadian border) and the Whatcom County medical system had many Canadians getting medical treatment that would have taken months (sometimes even years) of waiting in Canada (by their own estimate). Heck, half the shoppers at the big local Fred Meyer or Costco were Canadians, even with their dollar only worth 65 cents American. The fuel tax was crazy for Canadians, and I've seen lines of Canadians at the Fred Meyer fuel area with 10 red 5 Gallon containers that they would fill with fuel before their return back across the border.

And no taxes you say... let's see..

7% BC Provincial Sales Tax
5% Federal General Sales Tax
31% Combined Provincial and Federal Income Tax (middle class income)
$3.16 per $1000 assessed value Vancouver BC homes, $2.98 per $100 in New Westminster. When the average shack (they have a huge housing bubble) can cost your $500,000 to $750,000 easily, there is another $15,750 to $23,700 annually in property taxes. There is no free money, and socialized medicine needs income from somewhere.

And by the way, I don't even own a TV or watch TV news so little chance that Fox News has me regurgitating their talking points. Karl's tickers logically show that by implementing his ideas here in America we would have no need for socialized medicine or single payer government run health care. He is completely correct and those are the ideas I champion.
Porter
Posts: 38
Incept: 2011-03-29

Elkridge, Maryland
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
There is no debate.
I pushed this with a few folks today and the response told me that getting people to take responsibility for their own actions (lifestyle choices) is not going to happen.
It also means that people with certain diseases/issues are simply going to die from them because it is so statistically rare that there IS NO MARKET for going after any drug that could improve their status....even if/after the monopolies are broken. No one wants to say that.
No one wants to admit you are going to die and they seem to be A-OK with bankrupting themselves and everyone else on the way to their demise.
Some just keep saying, "I am doing what my doctor is telling me, why would they lie to me."
Most people see taking blood pressure meds, metformin, statins, etc... as a normal part of getting older. "Everyone is doing it." Just about everyone they talk to is just like them, comparing med dosages around the water cooler.

I think Karl is right. Lots of folks are going to die. The more I think on it, that might be the best prescription because when reason and math won't work, you have a very dangerous population.
Trinityalpsgal
Posts: 34
Incept: 2017-03-30

Weaverville, CA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Each Ticker on the subject of healthcare brings fresh insight, clarity, and focus to the discussion. I am grateful to you KD, for continuing to develop your views - as that perspective becomes mine to use in my circles (including a referral to MT).

Also, your comment on the use of heart-wrenching visuals - like my "favorite" 'drowned toddler who floated from his parents arms wearing a tiny red shirt and little blue shorts and sandals lying face down washed up on the beach alone with no life jacket picture' - is fair. Aborted fetus pictures are HEART-wrenching for some - and do not register in the BRAINS of others.

So what shuts down rational discussion? Perhaps being all HEART and no HEAD (rational thinking) in the world?

When we are distracted from the ROOT issue by a visual or visually interpretive scene (like the Jimmy Kimmel monologue)that touches Hearts - is the chance for deeper discussion/exploration and progress lost or diminished or is it enhanced? What if the "picture" is an AUTHENTIC PERSONAL EXPRESSION? Might it have the power to shock, to cut through the chaos/clutter? Would that not be positive?

I say it is IF THE RECEIVER engages the HEAD - HAS THE ABILITY TO INTERPERT THE MESSAGE, TO SEEK FACTS, APPLY LOGIC, TO REASON = TO GAIN UNDERSTANDING. And the to DO SOMETHING with what they now UNDERSTAND!

My interoperation of the Kimmel monologue: He got deeply personal and passionate, it was real. His HEART was in it 100%. I did not hear him endorse any particular plan. What I heard was his plea for care that makes considerations for children/people with potentially lifetime pre-existing conditions. In addition, he made reference to the affordability of healthcare, reflecting on his good fortune (being rich) while asking for equal treatment for someone who can't afford it (being poor).

It was President Obama who hijacked the Kimmel monologue - and twisted Kimmel's heart-felt expression into a legacy-saving commercial for Obamacare. A pathetic attempt! It is Obama's act of desperation that should be despised.

One last thing. Since Jimmy Kimmel OPENED up and made himself personally vulnerable - I see this as an OPPORTUNITY to educate him. He was asking about solutions. There is a possibility that he might listen to a view that truly solves problem. I am reaching out to him. There is nothing to lose.

Who will hold the vision that KD will be an invited guest on the show?



Tickerguy
Posts: 148666
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
My interoperation of the Kimmel monologue: He got deeply personal and passionate, it was real. His HEART was in it 100%. I did not hear him endorse any particular plan. What I heard was his plea for care that makes considerations for children/people with potentially lifetime pre-existing conditions. In addition, he made reference to the affordability of healthcare, reflecting on his good fortune (being rich) while asking for equal treatment for someone who can't afford it (being poor).

There isn't one, other than collapsing cost.

Any attempt to go anywhere else is not only doomed to fail, it's doomed to trash our society -- and that's the problem.

----------
Winding it down.
Trinityalpsgal
Posts: 34
Incept: 2017-03-30

Weaverville, CA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Side note 1: Full moon tonight! Beautiful here.
Side note 2: I can't freaking spell - interoperation = interpretation

RE: "There isn't one...Any attempt to go anywhere else is not only doomed to fail, it's doomed to trash our society -- and that's the problem."


Exactly. Kimmel does not see or know of an alternative. Let's see if I can get him on board.
Flappingeagle
Posts: 2582
Incept: 2011-04-14

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
There is one more aspect of this that needs to see the light of day, advertising, promotion, and misleading claims by the sugar, grain, and food companies. For example, the claims about how much better test subjects cholesterol numbers became when they went to oatmeal for breakfast. That study was rigged as hell as they took people who were eating a crap, sugar laden breakfast and put them on oatmeal instead. Of course their numbers got better.

The food companies have used their money to buy the biggest megaphone they can and used it to both drown out everyone else and, to broadcast misleading claims. In a good free-market system many of them could be sued out of existence due to false and misleading claims.

I am a free-market guy so at a minimum we need to end the sugar subsidy and probably a good bit of farmer subsidy to grow grains.

Flap

----------
Here are my predictions for everyone to see:
S&P 500 at 320, DOW at 2200, Gold $300/oz, and Corn $2/bu.
No sign that housing, equities, or farmland are in a bubble- Yellen 11/14/13
Trying to leave the Rat Race to the rats...
Satgent03
Posts: 1
Incept: 2017-05-11

GA & FLA depending on time of year
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I read through the other post with the solutions and saw some very good ideas and in this one too. Did I miss it when I went through both commentaries or was there any commentary on the cost of nursing homes for the elderly, which I believe is about 75% of Medicaid costs, addressed or are we simply going to eliminate that when we eliminate Medicaid? If I over looked that commentary I apologize!
Tickerguy
Posts: 148666
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
I read through the other post with the solutions and saw some very good ideas and in this one too. Did I miss it when I went through both commentaries or was there any commentary on the cost of nursing homes for the elderly, which I believe is about 75% of Medicaid costs, addressed or are we simply going to eliminate that when we eliminate Medicaid? If I over looked that commentary I apologize!

Well, first off where did you get that 75% number -- because it's bull****.

NY has arguably the worst numbers in this regard and it's about 20% of their total Medicaid spend.

Note that long-term care of *all* sorts is not just nursing homes and that Medicaid only picks it up if you're broke; you must drain ALL your assets first. About half of that long-term care spend by Medicaid is nursing homes -- and if you can avoid it, you definitely want to as while that's "care" it sucks.

Does it disappear? No. It disappears through Medicaid but that's only because medical spending of all sorts becomes individualized. So yes, about 15% of what we spend today in Medicaid will continue for that purpose but as individual tax liens -- and for those who are truly indigent (which is the only place Medicaid picks up nursing home spend) it will still get spent and the tax lien created will be written off when the person in question dies (since they'll have no estate for it to claim against.)

----------
Winding it down.
Emg
Posts: 79
Incept: 2012-11-20

Canada
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"What we have isn't perfect, but it works fairly well. "

Not sure I'd say that myself.

A friend's mother has cataracts to the point where she's having trouble seeing well enough to do ordinary, everyday things. She's been waiting six months for surgery already, and no idea when it will actually happen.

Another friend had a heart problem last year, and said that if he'd had it in any other province, he'd be dead, because his is the only one that covers the treatment he had.

Any government-funded system will ration healthcare, because there's an infinite demand and a limited amount of money.

BTW, on the diabetes front, apparently Type-1 is now curable in mice by gene therapy that should work equally well on humans, and the same therapy can be used to treat Type-2 (it's not a permanent fix if you keep loading up on sugar, but, if combined with a low-carb diet, could effectively be a cure). On the downside, it will probably cost $500,000 by the time it's made its way through the US healthcare system... or $5,000 in Mexico.
Tickerguy
Posts: 148666
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
BTW, on the diabetes front, apparently Type-1 is now curable in mice by gene therapy that should work equally well on humans, and the same therapy can be used to treat Type-2 (it's not a permanent fix if you keep loading up on sugar, but, if combined with a low-carb diet, could effectively be a cure). On the downside, it will probably cost $500,000 by the time it's made its way through the US healthcare system... or $5,000 in Mexico.

Don't bet on that working. There have been multiple attempts in this regard that all looked good in mice, but failed on further examination. They start with mice in this area of investigation but that it works there doesn't mean it will in people.

For Type II so long as you have not acquired a hybrid form of the disease (where the islet cells in your pancreas have been destroyed) virtually everyone who gets the carbs out of their diet will have their blood sugar return to normal levels. You MIGHT regain insulin sensitivity over a period of years, but there's no long term controlled study to back up that "maybe" and in any event the process that caused the damage in the first place WILL cause it again if you go back to eating the crap.

----------
Winding it down.
Emg
Posts: 79
Incept: 2012-11-20

Canada
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
If I remember correctly, they were using CRISPR to insert the genes that are missing or defective in Type-1, so it's more likely to work than many of the other treatments that have been tried. For Type-2 where the islet cells have died, they were inserting the genes into other cells to make them do the same job... that's why it's not a permanent fix if you keep eating crap and kill them off, too.

But, yes, we won't really know if it works until it is tried on humans.
Tickerguy
Posts: 148666
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
The problem is that we don't really know why Type I hits people when it does in a lot of circumstances. Most people with it acquire it sometime in their youth but not at birth, which strongly implies it's an auto-immune problem of some sort.

You can "graft" in whatever genes you want wherever you want but if the autoimmune problem still exists and gets triggered again (or never went away!) then you haven't solved anything as the original problem will reoccur. This is the fundamental problem with mouse studies in this regard since you have to "give" them Type I in the first place -- which is not how it happens in humans.

----------
Winding it down.
Ginnie
Posts: 5
Incept: 2017-04-03

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I see comparisons with socialized medicine and other schemes but I refuse to engage in those arguments because it's a deck chairs on the Titanic argument.

Here's what I do. I saw a hospital bill from a 1949 birth at a very good hospital in my city. The prices were $15 for delivery room use, $7.75 a day room charge and $1.50 a day for care of the baby. I assumed a 5 day stay because that was common 10 years later which is my frame of knowledge. I put the figures into usinflationcalculator .com and came up with a total of $617.66 in today's dollars. I find the childbirth example useful because for a standard birth, nothing has changed (except my mom says she had better care in the '60s than I had in the '90s). I put that example everywhere healthcare/insurance is discussed. Oh, and my mom paid less because she couldn't afford the pricier hospital and found a cheaper doctor and hospital. You could call and get the prices!

I have a huge vested interest in our currently imploding system because my youngest child has an autoimmune disorder that the drug alone costs $4000 every six weeks (after the insurance knocks it down from $6000). I will say the $200 cost for the infusion which requires nurse monitoring and a doctor just down the hall in case of a bad reaction is a cost I find reasonable. I would pay that out of pocket and it would be cheaper than my insurance premiums.

I'm aware and so is my son of how his health problem limits his career choices, almost entirely because of health insurance rather than physical limitations. He knows anybody he works for will be eating the cost. It isn't fair to the employer or him. He can't buy insurance, can't afford the drug at its astronomical cost, did nothing to cause his condition, and the drug works quite well (for now).

Insurance and politicians have allowed monopolistic practices to price an entire nation out of healthcare. My torch and pitchfork are ready but do no good when everybody else sits at home and watches me get arrested on TV.
Ckaminski
Posts: 4051
Incept: 2011-04-08

Mass-Hole!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
This regime of healthcare is quite possible why we don't have "cures" for things any longer.

Not to get into tinfoil about locked up cures, but the "recurring revenue" bit is a huge disincentive to actually solving problems since you basically have a customer coming back every year/month/week to get their "fix."

I seriously doubt we'd have dealt with Polio or smallpox as effectively had it happened in the 90's.

I know it's not quite that simple - human biology is just insanely complicated.

Ironically, this is one of the things that an EMR would be good for - accurately tracking biological outcomes coupled with geographic and genetic studies - if only we could assure that it wouldn't be abused.

Now if only I could find my copy of Gattaca...
Kgmqt
Posts: 93
Incept: 2013-08-19

Minnesota
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
Not to get into tinfoil about locked up cures, but the "recurring revenue" bit is a huge disincentive to actually solving problems since you basically have a customer coming back every year/month/week to get their "fix."


Karl has been hammering this home regarding type 2 for a long time. Most type 2 can be completely managed by diet. A few bucks on monitoring is all you need for medical spend. Instead the 'healthcare' industry would rather they continue a high carb diet, get on insulin, require frequent doctor visits, and ultimately still suffer other complications requiring additional treatment.

The industry is so afraid of the 'cure' getting widely publicized they shut it down as much as they can. On the local radio they run a commercial for some diabetes drug saying 'sometimes I feel like diabetes is don't-abetes' and with their drug you don't have to give up the food you want. No ****ing ****! I am sorry, but you cannot keep stuffing your pie hole with carbs! Sometimes I can't blame the industry for pushing the drug treatment when the sheeple would rather take it then give up the carbs.
Spence
Posts: 3172
Incept: 2009-09-11

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
On my local radio they run those 'cure diabetes' ads. I think it's a chiropractor scam.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-la....

Quote:
There are thousands of competent chiropractors in California helping people deal with back or neck pain.

And then there are some who run newspaper ads with bold claims about breakthrough treatments for diabetes and other chronic illnesses.

Robert Puleo, executive officer of the California Board of Chiropractic Examiners, the state's regulatory agency, can only shake his head when he sees these ads, which often include invitations to free dinners that are actually sales pitches.

"It reeks of snake oil," he said. "There are some chiropractors out there who want to make a buck any way they can."

Orange resident Wayne King attended "a free diabetic dinner event" in Irvine last month. The chiropractor holding the event, Candice McCowin, had run a newspaper ad saying that "stunning research now suggests Type 2 diabetes can begin to be reversed in as little as one week."

Trinityalpsgal
Posts: 34
Incept: 2017-03-30

Weaverville, CA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@ Ginnie - was trying to FAVE your recent comment but my finger touched the wrong box...


POWERFUL: "Insurance and politicians have allowed monopolistic practices to price an entire nation out of healthcare."


Your comment really got to me. How is it that you made the connection to price/cost? And that you understand the impact of your son's condition on a future employer?

Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last