Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Medicine for Better or Worse
Quite often I reminisce about the fifties and sixties, the eras in which I grew up. Life was a lot simpler then. We didn’t have or know about all of the complexities that life in the eighties, nineties or even the new century would bring.
Sure I enjoy some of the luxuries life offers us today. I often wonder what I would do without my computer, my cell phone, my HD television or of course the remote control. Yet other times I think I would give it all up in a minute to return to that simpler life where crime in the neighborhood was not an issue, people took responsibility for themselves and their families and idiots from the Middle East were not running around the world instigating jihads or holy wars for their own political purposes.
Back then families could nearly all afford health coverage at sensible rates. Your family doctor was a family friend. You could call him at almost any hour of the day to discuss your health concerns. In many cases if you were too sick to make an office visit he would come to your home to take care of you.
I still remember many of the office visits I made to Dr. Barnsback’s office. The ole’ guy could simply look at you and make a fairly accurate determination of your health problem. He checked your fingernails, used a tongue depressor, looked at your eyes, and then took your temperature, pulse and blood pressure. Quite often his recommendation was a simple home remedy, not a script for medication.
Measure that against health care in the modern world we live in today. We must acknowledge that today our health care is utterly governed by the insurance companies who institute most of the rules and guidelines. Whether you have an HMO, PPO, Medicare supplement or some similar type of insurance coverage, stipulations within the policy govern the quality of health care you will receive. Your family doctor has been replaced by a gate keeper who makes the necessary medical decisions in your behalf, under guidelines established by the companies.
Medical insurance policies are quite similar to automobile policies in as much as one can specify the limits of coverage based upon the premium you’re willing to pay or can afford. And like any other commodity you get what you pay for. In life threatening situations that may require for example, critical surgical procedures or an organ transplant, the limits on some policies might be reached or surpassed. Should this occur, the medical team, the hospital and the insurance company must agree on the allocated dollars.
In situations where the procedures will not be fully covered by insurance, the medical team and the hospital must make a hard decision. One must realize that doctors and hospitals alike are in the business to make money. And each can only write off a percentage of their bad debts to taxes. Truly ones’ financial status comes into play in such a situation. Those with inadequate insurance coverage or an inability to pay the freight could be expendable. It’s nothing personal, just a sound business decision on the part of those involved in the decision process.
Further, we no longer can go to the doctor of our choice because he or she may not be on the insurance company’s “preferred” network list. Doctors who agree to abide by the rules imposed on them by the insurance companies may be added to the company’s list of preferred practitioners. Those of us, who choose to use doctors that are out of “the network”, pay dearly for the service.
The doctor or gate keeper of today does not share many similarities to the family doctor I knew as a child or young adult. First, he or she works solely from an office. Home visits are out of the question and hospital visits, if required, are handled by a specialist to whom you’ve been referred. Second, in most cases he or she is quite aloof in their interaction with you. One might call this a professional approach, but I believe it often goes way beyond that.
Rarely does the doctor check your ears, your throat or fingernails to determine your measure of health. Instead he relies upon a barrage of tests to tell him such things. Some tests such as urine or blood analyses are good and important, others quite often are questionable. I often wonder why doctors schedule as many tests as they do. Could it be that they’re not otherwise competent to make a diagnostic decision or could it be that the test alone filters additional monies into their bank account? I’m also sure there is a liability factor in play here. The test result is the “CYA” factor.
Today, doctors are all too quick to write scripts for medications. No longer would they ever suggest a home remedy or homeopathic solution to an ailment. The reason here is obvious to anyone who has sat for a period of time in the waiting room. Doctors are inundated with visits by drug company salesmen. They provide the doctors with product samples and an array of other incentives to help push their products. And, it must be worthwhile because the doctor will certainly let you sit while they chitchat with the sales person.
I’m sure another generation twenty years from now will look back on today and remark about how great medical coverage was “back then”. I certainly don’t foresee it getting any better. It is almost a certainty that the new regime in Washington will socialize the system even further, therein depleting even more the quality of the system as we now know it. I only hope common sense will prevail in any Fed action, but that is highly unlikely.
Sure I enjoy some of the luxuries life offers us today. I often wonder what I would do without my computer, my cell phone, my HD television or of course the remote control. Yet other times I think I would give it all up in a minute to return to that simpler life where crime in the neighborhood was not an issue, people took responsibility for themselves and their families and idiots from the Middle East were not running around the world instigating jihads or holy wars for their own political purposes.
Back then families could nearly all afford health coverage at sensible rates. Your family doctor was a family friend. You could call him at almost any hour of the day to discuss your health concerns. In many cases if you were too sick to make an office visit he would come to your home to take care of you.
I still remember many of the office visits I made to Dr. Barnsback’s office. The ole’ guy could simply look at you and make a fairly accurate determination of your health problem. He checked your fingernails, used a tongue depressor, looked at your eyes, and then took your temperature, pulse and blood pressure. Quite often his recommendation was a simple home remedy, not a script for medication.
Measure that against health care in the modern world we live in today. We must acknowledge that today our health care is utterly governed by the insurance companies who institute most of the rules and guidelines. Whether you have an HMO, PPO, Medicare supplement or some similar type of insurance coverage, stipulations within the policy govern the quality of health care you will receive. Your family doctor has been replaced by a gate keeper who makes the necessary medical decisions in your behalf, under guidelines established by the companies.
Medical insurance policies are quite similar to automobile policies in as much as one can specify the limits of coverage based upon the premium you’re willing to pay or can afford. And like any other commodity you get what you pay for. In life threatening situations that may require for example, critical surgical procedures or an organ transplant, the limits on some policies might be reached or surpassed. Should this occur, the medical team, the hospital and the insurance company must agree on the allocated dollars.
In situations where the procedures will not be fully covered by insurance, the medical team and the hospital must make a hard decision. One must realize that doctors and hospitals alike are in the business to make money. And each can only write off a percentage of their bad debts to taxes. Truly ones’ financial status comes into play in such a situation. Those with inadequate insurance coverage or an inability to pay the freight could be expendable. It’s nothing personal, just a sound business decision on the part of those involved in the decision process.
Further, we no longer can go to the doctor of our choice because he or she may not be on the insurance company’s “preferred” network list. Doctors who agree to abide by the rules imposed on them by the insurance companies may be added to the company’s list of preferred practitioners. Those of us, who choose to use doctors that are out of “the network”, pay dearly for the service.
The doctor or gate keeper of today does not share many similarities to the family doctor I knew as a child or young adult. First, he or she works solely from an office. Home visits are out of the question and hospital visits, if required, are handled by a specialist to whom you’ve been referred. Second, in most cases he or she is quite aloof in their interaction with you. One might call this a professional approach, but I believe it often goes way beyond that.
Rarely does the doctor check your ears, your throat or fingernails to determine your measure of health. Instead he relies upon a barrage of tests to tell him such things. Some tests such as urine or blood analyses are good and important, others quite often are questionable. I often wonder why doctors schedule as many tests as they do. Could it be that they’re not otherwise competent to make a diagnostic decision or could it be that the test alone filters additional monies into their bank account? I’m also sure there is a liability factor in play here. The test result is the “CYA” factor.
Today, doctors are all too quick to write scripts for medications. No longer would they ever suggest a home remedy or homeopathic solution to an ailment. The reason here is obvious to anyone who has sat for a period of time in the waiting room. Doctors are inundated with visits by drug company salesmen. They provide the doctors with product samples and an array of other incentives to help push their products. And, it must be worthwhile because the doctor will certainly let you sit while they chitchat with the sales person.
I’m sure another generation twenty years from now will look back on today and remark about how great medical coverage was “back then”. I certainly don’t foresee it getting any better. It is almost a certainty that the new regime in Washington will socialize the system even further, therein depleting even more the quality of the system as we now know it. I only hope common sense will prevail in any Fed action, but that is highly unlikely.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Presidential Elections
Another presidential election year has drawn to a close. From my perspective it has been one of the most annoying, exasperating events that I have endured in my adult life. What used to take nine months from start to finish has now been elongated into a two year process.
More than a year ago I was already annoyed by the deluge of political television commercials. During both the morning and evening prime time, candidate ads were consistently repeated. Adding to my annoyance was the nearly constant, mostly biased commentaries from media sources that aired, day in and day out. Frankly, my tolerance of it all had peaked well before New Years had arrived. At the time, I was certainly not looking forward to the spring primary season where I knew the campaigns would intensify in both ads and media coverage.
The passion of the fall campaigns was merely the prelude of what was to come in the months ahead. Once the primaries were in full swing, fueled by the energy of the Obama –
One point of note that set this campaign apart from historical others was the amount of money raised and spent. I recently read that Obama raised more than 750 million dollars prior to the convention. In contrast, candidates in the 04 election raised only half that amount. One needs to look at the industries that profit from all this money. Obviously some goes to pay staff, office supplies and such. But that amount is a mere drop in the bucket when compared to the amount of money that is funneled for printing campaign material or to ad agencies, newspapers, radio and TV advertising. Is it a wonder that the guy spending the big bucks on media advertising gets the most favorable press?
In addition, think of the millions of dollars spent by the states and counties for their roll in conducting the elections. Such direct costs include not only the purchase of the voting machines but the computers, materials and staff needed to run the election.
After the infamous “hanging chad” fiasco of the 2000 Bush – Gore election, counties in
It is my opinion that in this automated, electronic, 21st century that we live in there has to be a cheaper procedure for holding such an election. From seeking qualified candidates that may not have the financial resources or star power to rise to the top, to one’s ability to campaign and conduct an election more economically, a solution should be found.
For example, think how simple and unsophisticated the voting is for shows such as American Idol or Dancing with the Stars. Millions of votes are electronically cast each week to choose winning contestants. Obviously such systems as currently set up are not fool proof since they allow voters to cast multiple ballots for their favorites. Yet I’m sure with American ingenuity such issues could eventually be overcome.
Instead of the long drawn out primary process we now endure, the political parties could hold a series of televised debates for their candidates. The debates would focus on the pertinent issues with each candidate being given an opportunity to state or argue their position. After several debates an elimination process would begin where each week, the candidate collecting the least amount of votes, would be eliminated. Once each party has selected their candidate a new series of debates begins to select the ultimate winner.
Such a solution is probably too idealistic and not doable since it eliminates those who make their riches off the election process. Yet I can certainly think of better, more charitable ways to spend 750 million than on a political candidate. Investing such money in cancer or heart research are two points that come to mind.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Arizona Holiday
Please feel free to look through my latest book about our vacation to the Grand Canyon this past summer.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Commercials are Annoying
If I remember correctly, cable television was originally hyped as a source of entertainment without commercials. It was the new, fresh alternative to network television with its proliferation of one commercial after another. The real value to early cable subscribers was solely the likes of HBO, Cinemax and the Showtime movie channels which were presented, as advertised, commercial free. At this early stage the jury was still out on cable. It took years before broadcasting companies both new and old recognized its value and began producing specialty programming.
Today, with the exception of some of the subscriber based movie channels, we are inundated with a variety of program choices that are virtually packed with an equal amount of commercials as programming. From the Food Network and Lifetime to ESPN or CNN, commercials almost, but not quite consume the lion’s share of a program’s length.
Last week we watched a movie on the Lifetime Movie Channel. The movie ran eight minutes then ran commercials for the next four. This schedule was fairly consistent throughout most of the movie. However in many instances as movies near the end, commercials often outpace the content.
Today, most network shows on CBS, ABC, Fox and NBC run slightly different schedules although I guess the average is about six minutes of programming to three minutes of commercial. That’s 20 minutes of commercial every hour. Another way of looking at this is 33% of your television viewing is commercial oriented.
Some of the talk shows run even more commercials. Take Dr. Phil or Montel for instance. Their schedule is approximately four minutes of programming to a two or three minute commercial break. Not only is the deluge of commercials annoying, it takes away from one’s interest in the program dialog.
Then there’s the repetition. Some advertisers see fit to run the same commercial numerous times within a program, if not back to back. It’s enough to make you want to pull your hair out!
And to add insult to injury this is an election year. Seems politicians employ the most mundane ad companies to produce their lies for them. Sure wish one or two would hire the company that produces the Anheuser Busch ads. Certainly at least one of the candidates might benefit from using the Clydesdale's. Might give new meaning to a horses’ ass.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Human Cloning
Most news networks on Thursday reported the story about a private laboratory in California who has successfully cloned a human embryo. Accordingly DNA was extracted from the donated egg and replaced with DNA from a lab donor. Reportedly, the altered embryo was later destroyed.
This is obviously mind boggling science. Yet with all the research going on in this area one knew that such a breakthrough would soon occur. I would expect that we will hear a lot of radical comments from the religious community over the next few months. From their perspective science is definitely prodding into areas reserved solely for Mother Nature.
One of the reports I listened to explained some of the positives associated with this knowledge that I hadn't even considered. Theoretically a laboratory could grow a new organ that would be an exact replacement for one that had failed or become diseased. Since the new "part" would be a duplicate, the body would not reject it. Quite a plus for someone with say heart or kidney problems.
From a sinister point of view I can perceive a lot of negatives. Imagine if someone such as Adolph Hitler had this science available to him. Would his dream to create a superior Arian race be possible? What about some of the other off-the-wall lunatic dictators in the world today? Would not their ego alone impel them to insist that their linage continued through subsequent generations?
Then on the other hand there's the Hollywood crowd. Could any of us stand ten more Britney Spears or five more Paris Hilton's?
This is obviously mind boggling science. Yet with all the research going on in this area one knew that such a breakthrough would soon occur. I would expect that we will hear a lot of radical comments from the religious community over the next few months. From their perspective science is definitely prodding into areas reserved solely for Mother Nature.
One of the reports I listened to explained some of the positives associated with this knowledge that I hadn't even considered. Theoretically a laboratory could grow a new organ that would be an exact replacement for one that had failed or become diseased. Since the new "part" would be a duplicate, the body would not reject it. Quite a plus for someone with say heart or kidney problems.
From a sinister point of view I can perceive a lot of negatives. Imagine if someone such as Adolph Hitler had this science available to him. Would his dream to create a superior Arian race be possible? What about some of the other off-the-wall lunatic dictators in the world today? Would not their ego alone impel them to insist that their linage continued through subsequent generations?
Then on the other hand there's the Hollywood crowd. Could any of us stand ten more Britney Spears or five more Paris Hilton's?
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Food For Thought
I have strong Midwestern roots, having been born and raised in the Chicago area. Yet even as a city boy with a public school education I learned a little about farming. In the rich farmland of Northern Illinois, corn was the major crop. As one headed either west or south from the city, it was all that one could see. Knee high by the Fourth of July I was taught. For some, the sign of a good crop was measured that way.
Once the corn crop was harvested the farmers often planted a crop of soybeans. The crop usually matured by late fall and was simply turned under by the farmer. Why would a farmer plant a crop, then till it under one might ask? To simply add good, natural nutrients back into the soil. Such measures helped to insure another good crop the following season.
Times have certainly changed in the past twenty or more years. Soybeans are now grown for profit, not fertilizer. Natural fertilizers and soil enrichments have been replaced with a variety of chemical substitutes. Chemicals are used to insure product growth and increase the crops productivity or yield. Additional chemical products are used to insure against plant disease or insect infestation. With the exception of organically grown foods, chemicals are used to produce nearly every grown food we eat.
Animals grown for human consumption are not much different. Be it a cow, pig, sheep or chicken, chemicals are used in a variety of feed products to unnaturally prepare the animal for market purposes. A plumper chicken breast or a tenderer, tastier strip steak are quite often the by-products of such procedures. But hey, it looks good and tastes good! Isn't that what the market demands?
Never thought much about this until my wife and I began traveling out of the country. Spend a week on a Caribbean island or in Europe and you begin to notice a change. After a week or more of eating organic foods and consuming meat that has naturally grazed in fields or eaten organically grown feed, you'll notice a difference. Your body not only feels better, it shows in your complexion. There is a decided difference.
The FDA claims none of this should be concerning to us. After all, they're the Government, and they know best. Yet, time is the real measure of acceptance here and frankly, in my opinion, we haven't traveled far enough down that line to accurately gauge the results. Certainly changes in the younger generations are apparent to me. Can the same chemical that was used to grow the corn stalk two feet higher be ultimately responsible for abnormal body growth or obesity? What long term effect does the chemical preservative in the slice of bread you ate for lunch have on your ultimate health and longevity? Believe me, the FDA doesn't know.
Once the corn crop was harvested the farmers often planted a crop of soybeans. The crop usually matured by late fall and was simply turned under by the farmer. Why would a farmer plant a crop, then till it under one might ask? To simply add good, natural nutrients back into the soil. Such measures helped to insure another good crop the following season.
Times have certainly changed in the past twenty or more years. Soybeans are now grown for profit, not fertilizer. Natural fertilizers and soil enrichments have been replaced with a variety of chemical substitutes. Chemicals are used to insure product growth and increase the crops productivity or yield. Additional chemical products are used to insure against plant disease or insect infestation. With the exception of organically grown foods, chemicals are used to produce nearly every grown food we eat.
Animals grown for human consumption are not much different. Be it a cow, pig, sheep or chicken, chemicals are used in a variety of feed products to unnaturally prepare the animal for market purposes. A plumper chicken breast or a tenderer, tastier strip steak are quite often the by-products of such procedures. But hey, it looks good and tastes good! Isn't that what the market demands?
Never thought much about this until my wife and I began traveling out of the country. Spend a week on a Caribbean island or in Europe and you begin to notice a change. After a week or more of eating organic foods and consuming meat that has naturally grazed in fields or eaten organically grown feed, you'll notice a difference. Your body not only feels better, it shows in your complexion. There is a decided difference.
The FDA claims none of this should be concerning to us. After all, they're the Government, and they know best. Yet, time is the real measure of acceptance here and frankly, in my opinion, we haven't traveled far enough down that line to accurately gauge the results. Certainly changes in the younger generations are apparent to me. Can the same chemical that was used to grow the corn stalk two feet higher be ultimately responsible for abnormal body growth or obesity? What long term effect does the chemical preservative in the slice of bread you ate for lunch have on your ultimate health and longevity? Believe me, the FDA doesn't know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)