Possible Reason's for Anger at the HealthCare System

[hades161]

I was out surfing the web and found something I thought was interesting and wish to share it with the forums here. Here is the link. It is not an advertisement or anything, nor is it selling anything.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar ... ath_01.htm

If one reads the whole article and looks into the references listed and the agencies involved, it might add a little light into why so many people are angry with the Healthcare systems in place today. The article and its many references, is to me, a very disturbing outlook on the medical community in general if the infomation is true of course, but with all the references and the ability to track them down it looks at least on the surface to be a legitimate report.

So please take the time to look it over and share your thoughts and opinion's on it.

[Snoredog]

I follow the readings of the lef.org for years, great organization. Notice that paper was written by all doctors?

There is a lot more worthwhile information on that site than just that article. My opinion is the FDA is a worthless branch of our government and only there to issue licenses to steal from its citizens.

that is what I like about cpap treatment, it is probably about as close to natural as you can get. may not be the perfect solution, but it is better with it than without.

I like this quote:

These attacks against natural medicine obscure a lethal problem that until now was buried in thousands of pages of scientific text. In response to these baseless challenges to natural medicine, the Nutrition Institute of America commissioned an independent review of the quality of “government-approved” medicine. The startling findings from this meticulous study indicate that conventional medicine is “the leading cause of death” in the United States .

[tomjax]

This heading could be a veritable pandoras box aand quickly get out of control.
Anger is inherent in many individuals for real and imagined reasons bsed in a large degree to the individuals psychological makeup.
An article in our local paper reported that a mother yelled out at a passing driver to slow down. The person circled the block and came back and shot the person dead.
This is, of course an extreme example. Others express their anger in a wide range of reactions.
A person may have anger that is based on percieved inequities of the system.
Others seem to react to the most benign situation in a hostile manner that reflects their own personality.
Some on this forum seem to enjoy picking a fight with others that do not reflect sensitiity. Some seem to enjoy this and their power of rationalizing seems to have no boundaries.
I am by nature a contrarian and skeptic. I try to examine the premises expressed and question the logic of postings and avoid personal attacks.
For this I often get the arrows of a very predictable select few that seem to do the same for others.

It could just get out of hand very quickly. The nature of people will guarantee this.
I could be wrong
tomjax

[Sleepy-eyes]

I am by nature a contrarian and skeptic.

I love that line, tomjax. My Mom used to accuse me of being the most negative person she'd every known. Wish I'd had that line to give her while she was still alive. If you don't mind, I think I'll try and remember it and keep it in my holster.

[Snoozin' Bluezzz]

I am by nature a contrarian and skeptic.

I love that line, tomjax. My Mom used to accuse me of being the most negative person she'd every known. Wish I'd had that line to give her while she was still alive. If you don't mind, I think I'll try and remember it and keep it in my holster.

I am not sure why questioning the veracity of an unsupported statement, the basis of a proposition or assumption, expressing healthy skepticism and asking others to "think" is perceived as "negativity" but it is a phenomenon I experience too often to quantify. On the other hand naysaying, being contrary just to be contrary, and negativity when proposing as least an effort at attempting change is very spirit killing, disturbing and quite chronic as well but when that is named as negativity it is often described as "reality". We, meaning all of us humans, can be such funny and inconsistent critters.

If I had not persisted in becoming compliant in my OSA treatment I very well might be dead now. I continue to persist, albeit with seeming futility, in trying to change my eating behaviors and exercise habits in order to get some weight off. While I have to practice healthy skepticism in accepting easy or pat answers I can not be negative in these efforts or I will never have any success.

Contrarian skepticism versus being negative in an unhelpful manner can be a fine line for me to walk.

David

[houclay]

Tomjax,

I have not been around the forum long enough to know who you mean when you say, "[s]ome on this forum seem to enjoy picking a fight with others," nor have I yet seen you targeted by "the arrows of a very predictable select few."

On the other hand, other than posting a response to the article cited by the OP, your post seems little more than a passive-aggressive attempt to "poke the bears." Sometimes you find what you go looking for.

Clay

[tomjax]

Thank you douclay for being the first to validate my observaions.

Passive aggresive? Iteresting.

I think it helpful to carefully exanine the defifition of contrarian and help me understand how this is equated to negativity.
This from Wikipedia:
Philosophically, a contrarian is a person who tends to take positions that openly challenge conventional wisdom.

In Sociology, the term can be understood as an attitude of going against the establishment in terms of the social mores of the time. A social contrarian attempts to show to others, like Socrates through Plato, that there is something inherently wrong with their limited world view.

-
I simply refuse to accept and join in the cacophony of others because a certain view is popular and become an acolyte for the sake of conforming.
In another group, I am being treated as a leper because I question the claims made by the global warming issue.
Many people believe what they want to believe and are influenced by their ideology rather than their objective reasoning. I have not made up my mind on GW and think it is FAR from a settled issue.
I will also post my response later to the article referenced in the initial posting. I did not address the article in my reply.
The use of contrary with its implications does not equate in my mind contrarian. They are 2 entirely different animals.
later, tomjax
douclay- also consider SOME in my reply

[NightHawkeye]

Possible Reason's for Anger at the HealthCare System

Hades161, don't confuse anger with criticism. The two are vastly different.

For sure, there are people angry with the health care system. There are also people critical of the health care system. The two are not always the same.

The article you cited is critical of the health care system, but it is not an angry article. This article is one of numerous such articles published by the natural foods and supplements industry as a counter-attack to regulatory efforts of that industry promoted by the FDA.

In my opinion, the article is mostly political posturing; an effort to fend off attacks, either perceived or real, by the FDA. In other words, it is an effort to discredit the FDA, and darned if the FDA hasn't given them plenty to accomplish that with.

How real or believable is any of it? Don't ask me.

Just my $0.02.

Regards,
Bill

[hades161]

My intent in posting this was not out of anger or malice but more to question the content and get feed back on the report itself and discuss them. To me, many of the things in the report offer possibilities into why so many people are upset about the healthcare system in place today. The report is posted in many places if you search for it. My error I guess was posting the link from a site that is using it poorly and as has been said used as a counter attack. But the people and alot of the infomation comes from sources that are not on any side.

Take the information from the Office Of Technology Assessment for example. This agency if you look deeper was NOT part of the FDA it was it's own agency within the government responsible to help the members of Congress with understanding new technology. It has its own web site yet even though the agency was closed due in large part to political BS.

I question any and all information I read or see these days as there is normally some twist on it but for some reason this report seems a bit more legit to me so I question it even more. So as this is a place with people I respect alot with much understanding and experience with the system my wish was to see if the report would stand up to the skeptics and the arrows of the forum here.

Truth to me is very hard to find these days on the web and in the media. I like to have to ideas and opinions of more then just myself on any issue before I invest belief in it.

One can never discount the fact that ones self may be full of poo and so I look for more then just my ideas on any given subject.

DISCLAIMER

I am NOT part of or into the whole natural medicine over Western Medicine fight. I don't care what medicine or medical view treats me as long as it works and doesn't overly harm me in the process. By nature I am a fixer and all I look for is a solution, preferably a final one or at the very least the best one available. I don't care if it comes from a Doctor from the west or a pygmy witch doctor as long as it works.

[Snoozin' Bluezzz]

Thank you douclay for being the first to validate my observaions.

Passive aggresive? Iteresting.

I think it helpful to carefully exanine the defifition of contrarian and help me understand how this is equated to negativity.
This from Wikipedia:
Philosophically, a contrarian is a person who tends to take positions that openly challenge conventional wisdom.

In Sociology, the term can be understood as an attitude of going against the establishment in terms of the social mores of the time. A social contrarian attempts to show to others, like Socrates through Plato, that there is something inherently wrong with their limited world view.

-
I simply refuse to accept and join in the cacophony of others because a certain view is popular and become an acolyte for the sake of conforming.
In another group, I am being treated as a leper because I question the claims made by the global warming issue.
Many people believe what they want to believe and are influenced by their ideology rather than their objective reasoning. I have not made up my mind on GW and think it is FAR from a settled issue.
I will also post my response later to the article referenced in the initial posting. I did not address the article in my reply.
The use of contrary with its implications does not equate in my mind contrarian. They are 2 entirely different animals.
later, tomjax
douclay- also consider SOME in my reply

This is an interesting discussion which has evolved to a point, certainly helped along by me, where it has little to do with OSA but I'll continue chiming in with another $.01-$.02 more.

It is gratifying to see another person likening themselves to a personage as august as Socrates. I know my brain, knowledge, powers of reason, skill and experience certainly qualify me to show others how limited their weltanschuang is and I indulge in the activity with great frequency. I also know that when I do there are plenty of folks that would like to see me drink poison. Well, it ain't gonna happen.

Irony aside, I experience contrarianism as often being a knee jerk evocation like so many others and it seems to manifest itself in common everyday orneriness that is frequently unhelpful. I accept the basic plausibility and likelihood of the reality of GW not because it is conventional wisdom but because my reason has taken me there but a contrarian, to be contrary, would challenge me that I have gotten there because it is conventional wisdom (perhaps this is true of others taking the stance as well?). That, to me, would be disrespectful and unhelpful in discourse. My next step would be - if reasonable and plausible why not at least explore steps that would reduce it rather than just say - no, no, no! One way of settling it will be to wait until cities are under water and the midwestern USA is a dry savannah but... It is a risk issue but the point here is not to debate GW (whoa, which GW now?).

I would also be interested in knowing how one can be a contrarian in our current society by going against established social mores? What are our established social mores now, at least in the good old US of A? That certainly could generate a healthy debate!

Contrarianism and negativity? Well, I guess if one person says x is so (accepted wisdom or substantiated fact) and a contrarian says it is not, or at least it is not necessarily so it certainly then can be seen as a "negative" and if it is chronic and knee jerk it then certainly could be seen as "negativity". Does the contrarian say "not" or "not necessarily"? An important distinction.

Bill - great point about criticism and anger. Same point goes for criticism and loyalty or criticism and negativity particularly if the criticism is constructive and well reasoned.

Yadayadayada - This is the offering of my weekly dose of metaphysics which happened to end up on this forum rather than more normal venues because I have little to offer on CPAP Talk otherwise since my OSA therapy is going just fine. Now, if I could quit eating like a pig and get some weight off!!!!


David

[tomjax]

David, you make some helpful points and maybe semantics are involved here.
I pasted the difinition of contrarian from Wikipedia which included the Socrates reference. I did not equate myself to Socrates, but often employ Socratic inquiry which bothers some.

If kneejerk and impulsive reactions are implicit in contrarianism, then perhaps I should find a better term.
I do not disagree for the sake of disagreeing. I agree if there is cogent and compelling reasons based on objective facts.
I try to carefully and objectively examine any issue in formulating my own opinion. Many times my first thoughts are not my final ones.
GW is one such example and remember I said I had not made my mind up on this, not that I rejected what many are claiming.
I have spent considerable time reading both sides and find there are lots of compelling evidence that does not support the chicken little alarmists.
I firmly believe the vast majority of oinions on this is the result of what OTHERS think and the momentum is building not on reason but ideoolgy and Political correctness .
Established social mores are often the result of concensus based on the above processes. Concensus is not a scientific tool. Proof is.
You make some valid points in a civil manner that is often lacking here.

I promise I will get back to the original post and my thoughts on it.
David, I hope you will help me when I do with your critique.

[NightHawkeye]

Hades161, because the topic interests me I spent just a little time looking through the article and doing a few internet searches related to it. While I'm not particularly impressed with the report, my opinion is that at least some of the claims made appear to be verifiable.

However, there is no way to verify the bottom line conclusion. Physicians simply don't keep records which would allow any sort of accurate verification.

Being a contrarian myself, and because the report you cite is referenced thousands of places on the internet I spent a little time looking for articles to refute its claims. I did not find any serious rebuttals. Instead, what I found were numerous parodies, innuendos and personal attacks against the report's authors. All of these attacks were produced by individuals with MD credentials beside their names. And so I'm left wondering; if the report bothered these MD's enough to write rebuttals at all, much less to distribute them widely on their blogs, why didn't some of these MD's take the time to put together a compelling case seriously documenting the deficiencies of the report. Of course, maybe some did, and I just didn't happen to find them.

Regards,
Bill

[hades161]

I didn't find them ether although I did find the other things you had mentioned. That's one of the main reason I put up the article for discussion. When looking into it, it seemed to be, to me anyway, a fairly verifiable report with some facts to it other then just opinions. Yes, there are opinions in the article as well but I was more interested in the statistics.
The title of my post was meant more in the light of possible patient reasons for being angry at the system and the report does reflect possible reasons for a large amount of people to be angry with our current health care system other then the normal bluster that one finds. Also I was hoping for any of our health care professionals that read these forums, to have a look at it. I know it most likely will be discounted, but if in the hopes they look into it, to respond to it, and find a grain of truth in the article, that they will understand better why some of us at least feel the way we do.