Will 2024 Bring a 'Major Turning Point' in US Health Care? (usatoday.com) 154
"This year has been a major turning point in American health care," reports USA Today, "and patients can anticipate several major developments in the new year," including the beginning of a CRISPR "revolution" and "a new reckoning with drug prices that could change the landscape of the U.S. health care system for decades to come."
Health care officials expect 2024 to bring a wave of innovation and change in medicine, treatment and public health... Many think 2024 could be the year more people have the tools to follow through on New Year's resolutions about weight loss. If they can afford them and manage to stick with them, people can turn to a new generation of remarkably effective weight-loss drugs, also called GLP-1s, which offer the potential for substantial weight loss...
In 2023, mental health issues became among the nation's most deadly, costly and pervasive health crises... The dearth of remedies has also paved the way for an unsuspecting class of drugs: psychedelics. MDMA, a party drug commonly known as "ecstasy," could win approval for legal distribution in 2024, as a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. Another psychedelic, a ketamine derivative eskatemine, sold as Spravato, was approved in 2019 to treat depression, but it is being treated like a conventional therapy that must be dosed regularly, not like a psychedelic that provides a long-lasting learning experience, said Matthew Johnson, an expert in psychedelics at Johns Hopkins University. MDMA (midomafetamine capsules) would be different, as the first true psychedelic to win FDA approval.
In a late-stage trial of patients with moderate or severe post-traumatic stress disorder, close to 90% showed clinically significant improvements four months after three treatments with MDMA and more than 70% no longer met the criteria for having the disorder, which represented "really impressive results," according to Matthew Johnson, an expert in psychedelics at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland. Psilocybin, known colloquially as "magic mushrooms," is also working its way through the federal approval process, but it likely won't come up before officials for another year, Johnson said. Psychedelics are something to keep an eye on in the future, as they're being used to treat an array of mental health issues: eskatimine for depression, MDMA for PTSD and psilocybin for addiction. Johnson said his research suggests that psychedelics will probably have a generalizable benefit across many mental health challenges in the years to come.
2024 will also be the first year America's drug-makers face new limits on how much they can increase prices for drugs covered by the federal health insurance program Medicare.
In 2023, mental health issues became among the nation's most deadly, costly and pervasive health crises... The dearth of remedies has also paved the way for an unsuspecting class of drugs: psychedelics. MDMA, a party drug commonly known as "ecstasy," could win approval for legal distribution in 2024, as a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. Another psychedelic, a ketamine derivative eskatemine, sold as Spravato, was approved in 2019 to treat depression, but it is being treated like a conventional therapy that must be dosed regularly, not like a psychedelic that provides a long-lasting learning experience, said Matthew Johnson, an expert in psychedelics at Johns Hopkins University. MDMA (midomafetamine capsules) would be different, as the first true psychedelic to win FDA approval.
In a late-stage trial of patients with moderate or severe post-traumatic stress disorder, close to 90% showed clinically significant improvements four months after three treatments with MDMA and more than 70% no longer met the criteria for having the disorder, which represented "really impressive results," according to Matthew Johnson, an expert in psychedelics at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland. Psilocybin, known colloquially as "magic mushrooms," is also working its way through the federal approval process, but it likely won't come up before officials for another year, Johnson said. Psychedelics are something to keep an eye on in the future, as they're being used to treat an array of mental health issues: eskatimine for depression, MDMA for PTSD and psilocybin for addiction. Johnson said his research suggests that psychedelics will probably have a generalizable benefit across many mental health challenges in the years to come.
2024 will also be the first year America's drug-makers face new limits on how much they can increase prices for drugs covered by the federal health insurance program Medicare.
Correct solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the real problem is people are eating improperly and not getting enough physical activity. There was no 'obesity epidemic' until the late '70s, and it wasn't due to lack of medication.
Re:Correct solution? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it was more due to a lack of heavily processed food and the fact that people could actually cook for themselves back then.
I'm not so convinced that the average American is capable of making a simple pancake themselves these days.
Re:Correct solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm willing to take "all of the above", including various pollutants as well.
1. Lack of exercise
2. Improper diet
3. Improper gut bacteria most likely inherited from your mother, exasperated by drugs
4. The effects of various pollutants like microplastics and other stuff that act like hormones on the body
5. Improper education about diet.
6. Relentless advertising and designing of foods to break our natural inclinations/controls, to make food addictive(and unhealthy as a consequence of this and making it cheap)
etc...
Re: (Score:3)
I have often wondered if the use of antibiotics (perhaps combined with appendectomy [*]) affects the gut microbiome, resulting in weight gain.
* One suggestion I read some years back is that the appendix provides a reservoir of bacteria so that the gut microbiome can be restored after events that wipe it out, such as gut infections and antibiotic use.
Re: (Score:3)
I have often wondered if the use of antibiotics [...] affects the gut microbiome, resulting in weight gain.
I initially scoffed at this hypothesis, but thought it interesting enough to Google. Turns out you might be asking a valid question. The jury is still out on a definitive correlation between antibiotic use and obesity, but there is a reason antibiotics are given to cattle to promote weight gain. Most of the current studies are looking for a connection in chronic antibiotic use (more than three times a week for more than three months) but it definitely changes our gut biome toward more bad bacteria which
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What I love about this idea is that it's perfectly reasonable. All the germs in that "city" interact in such a way that they create/break-down some c
Re: (Score:2)
I remember that as well. They've ended up going towards such transplants are to be provided by *thin* people, because the number of thin people who become fat after a transplant from a fat person and the number of fat people who become thin after a transplant from a thin person is significant.
Your gut bacteria is important. I'm not saying that taking probiotics is the way to go, but it is an option. They have my dad on probiotics after his chemotherapy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it can get complicated, of course. Some things are simple, but it gets very complicated very quickly. We're still at the "association" stage, where we don't know what's cause, result, mutualism, or what.
I remember reading a few things, like that "healthy" gut systems generally include more species than those with "unhealthy" high weight individuals.
Places can't even agree on what's a "high quality" probiotic.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, but what are you going to do about it? Poor health has an economic cost. Berating overweight people doesn't work. Advice on diet and exercise doesn't work.
Without making any judgement on the individuals, from a pure engineering point of view, these medications are a solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, making fresh, healthy food more expensive than junk food doesn't help. Also, making people work all hours of the day just to make ends meet so that they're too exhausted to cook, let alone learn how to cook, doesn't help either.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree, but you are talking about massive changes to US politics and society, which seem unlikely to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, technically, the same can be said for stomach stapling and other operations that limit your ability to process food.
They all have drawbacks, though. Physiological ones and psychological ones. For example, if you get your stomach reduced, you cannot eat as much anymore. If eating is something you enjoy, you're down one thing you can enjoy. Believe it or not, for a lot of people this isn't a solution, it's hell on earth. They're sitting there in front of food they would love to eat but there just is no
Re: (Score:2)
What to do about it gets complicated. Laying out the problem is only the beginning.
Some thoughts:
1. Start restricting the addictive foods. Make them more expensive than healthy stuff, for example.
2. Restrict advertising of unhealthy foods
3. More research into gut bacteria and the micropollutants. Figure out the reasons.
4. Better campaigns about healthy food.
5. Try some stuff to improve work-life balances and healthy living. Not easy, but none of the stuff here is really easy.
6. Of course these dru
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so convinced that the average American is capable of making a simple pancake themselves these days.
When does the average American have time?
In the gig economy with people holding down two or more maybe not even minimum wage jobs and living in a food desert, there isn't the opportunity if they knew how. And of course they have no protection from megacorps relentlessly designing bad food to be as addictive as possible.
Cooking takes time to do and longer to learn how.
Re: (Score:2)
As I've said elsewhere, eating healthy mostly depends on time, money and cooking skill. And you need all three. Because the alternative is processed crap, loaded with cheap crap like sugar.
Re: (Score:3)
If these drugs work then who cares? It's good for them and good for everyone in general.
Obesity is obviously a growing problem many countries are facing as they industrialize and it's a real issue with negative outcomes so if can treat it then lets treat it.
There was no impotence epidemic in the 1990s but we still got boner pills.
Re: (Score:2)
There was no impotence epidemic in the 1990s but we still got boner pills.
Viagra was discovered by accident; the researchers were trying to create a treatment for angina. Kind of similar to the urban legend which says that the sugar substitute sucralose was actually discovered while scientists were trying to develop a new pesticide (the official explanation is that the scientists were just playing around with chlorinated sucrose compounds, because, well, who knows?).
Re: (Score:2)
Yup and GLP-1 which was the precursor to these new line of weight loss drugs was a similar side effect discovered in working on diabetes treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
They're actually the same drug, though with a different dosage. I'm inclined to believe that it's marketed under a different name so that pharmacies can prioritize the diabetic patients (marketed as Ozempic) over weight loss patients (marketed as Wegovy), at least until the new factory is finished to easy the shortage.
Re: (Score:2)
If these drugs work then who cares? It's good for them and good for everyone in general.
Careful with that logic. If a car is making a rattling sound, do we fill every opening with spray insulation until the rattling stops, or do we identify the underlying cause and address it directly?
Sure, obesity itself is a problem that can lead to other issues, so treating it is a benefit, but it doesn’t necessarily address the underlying cause that can lead to yet more issues. My understanding is that these drugs help to suppress appetite, which is addressing the problem closer to the source than so
Re: Correct solution? (Score:2)
If your car wouldn't start, would you refuse to put gas in it because it isn't as fuel
Re: (Score:2)
I would not place the guilt the fat people that easily. "Feeling hungry" happens to everyone, but USA seems to have a specific problem of people becoming fat. For the few times I visited the USA, I was shocked at the food offering: too much, too sweet, too fat. I had to throw away half of the meat because of the quantity, the much food is dip fried, and sweet drinks are on free refill. (Each of that is shocking.) If I lived in USA I would eat in these places like everyone else because it's affordable, close
Re: Correct solution? (Score:2)
Other countries are quickly catching up though. The problem is not the food, itâ(TM)s the fact Americans can more readily afford excessive food. Obesity is a wealth disease and Europe, Asia and even Africa is catching up in wealth (and obesity)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's the problem with it. People don't know and understand that. They will just go "I take this lose-weight medication, so I can stuff my face with impunity", not realizing that the function of the drug is to tell them they're full when they're not, and that if they keep stuffing their face with high-calorie food, they'll still gain weight.
But with a hint of luck this will result in them claiming the drug doesn't work and the whole thing will blow over soon.
Re: (Score:2)
No offense but this reads like an emotional response that people might "get away with something" when the entire reason these drugs' are being used and considered is they have positive outcomes for people. The drug is supposed to help quell that impulse to, as you put it "stuff my face with impunity" and if the drug can help with the physiological impulses then the people have a better chance at adapting into some better lifestyle and mental behaviors.
If we give 1000 the drug and 1000 people placebos and m
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that it's not the panacea it's heralded to be. There are people who eat not because they're hungry but because they compensate a psychological shortcoming. These people will not have any effect whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
What would lead you to that conclusion, to say it's a psychological shortcoming is to say that it's an issue of mental state and in fact that's what drugs can assist with.
When people have depression or anxiety or ADHD that's also a psychological shortcoming and we treat it as a condition, not just "hey pal, don't be so sad"
It's not the end all fix all, nobody is saying that, but to just say "people are weak" is a non-solution and we have a track record of everything wrapped around that conclusions absolutel
Re: (Score:2)
Well, thank you for insisting it's almost always fat people's fault.
I said nothing of the sort, let alone insisting on it. Even re-reading my post, I don’t see how you could have come away with that reading of what I wrote.
Re: (Score:2)
Well sure and we can say that until we are blue in the face and feel a great sense of superiority but everyone, and i mean everyone has been hearing "eat right and exercise" for decades from their doctors and from media and society in general and the problem is continuing to get worse.
No large scale problem in human history has been solved by just telling and expecting people to all at once make better decisions. You can expect that from a person but not people.
Addressing the root cause of obesity is going
Re: (Score:3)
People seem to think obesity is the only "self inflicted" problem that doesn't deserve help.
Drug use? Lets be compassionate and make sure there are clinics around and develop drugs like Naloxone to stop overdoses.
Bad with money? That's okay, you can just file bankruptcy and it will be slightly harder to buy a house for a couple years.
Antisocial (and often criminal) behavior? We should be accepting of this, they may be on the spectrum.
Obese? Get fucked fatty.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the real problem is people are eating improperly
The problem is how does one eat properly? When even basic things like bread are loaded with sugar what's a person to do?
Re: (Score:2)
Buy more healthy alternatives.
Oh wait, we can't afford that anymore, all most people can buy with their meager income is the cheap-ass kibble that's loaded with whatever junk is cheap to make...
Re: Correct solution? (Score:2)
Rich people are fatter than poor people. Humans (most animals) have evolved to stock up on high caloric foods for survival if it is available. It is not the quality, itâ(TM)s the quantity. You can survive on McDonalds food if you limit your intake to about 1800-2000 calories.
Re: (Score:2)
Rich people have not been fatter than poor people for at least half a century now.
Ever since we resolved the problem that fats and carbohydrates are dirt cheap and cheaper than fresh vegetables, the fatness levels have switched.
Re: (Score:2)
And maybe all those idiots that catch dysentery should just boil their water? We definitely shouldn't be wasting time on medicine for that. They should know the water is polluted, just like Americans should know the food they eat is unhealthy.
Or maybe people inherit / learn bad habits which are made worse by the type of work and recreation available to them and the food they are able to easily afford. My wife grew up in a house that didn't have a stove, should I expect her to know how to bake?
The fact is
Simplistic smugness for a complex problem. (Score:2)
people can turn to a new generation of remarkably effective weight-loss drugs, also called GLP-1s, which offer the potential for substantial weight loss... Maybe the real problem is people are eating improperly and not getting enough physical activity. There was no 'obesity epidemic' until the late '70s, and it wasn't due to lack of medication.
You're proposing simplistic causes and solutions for what is a very complex problem. What if we're eating correctly...far better than you...and exercising like athletes, but still chunky? Metabolism isn't deterministic. So kindly fuck off with your smugness. I've worked out 5-7 days a week since I was in high school and have never gotten my body fat percentage below 20. I live off vegetables, lean protein, and salad. I eat and workout like a psychopath and am hungry regularly and do everything I am su
Huh? (Score:3)
It can even get worse and more expensive? I thought that's impossible now.
So no. I don't think so. Because I just can't see any improvement happening any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
My first though as well.
Unsustainable Funding (Score:2)
It can even get worse and more expensive?
That is not just a US trend but a global healthcare trend. As more treatments and drugs are developed the cost is going up everywhere far above the rate of inflation and this makes it unsustainable. The difference between the US and the rest of the world is how that increased expense manifests itself. With national healthcare, the stretched budgets mean wait times increase and quality decreases. With the US system increased premiums and costs mean fewer people get covered and those that are covered tend to
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that we are spending a far larger fraction of our research budgets than we should on advertising
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
There is really simple solution.
1. Get rid of all medical patents
2. Fund medical research from government money. For example WHO could take the lead in this, everyone pays what they can for the research and everyone gets the benefits.
As a result:
- This would not be that much different from current situation, as the most important research is already done with public money. Private companies are just doing the final touch and getting all the profits (from which 10% is used for research). Biggest different wo
Re: Unsustainable Funding (Score:2)
You are proposing a European model, they fund orders of magnitude less research. Most healthcare innovation globally comes from US funding, which is sustainable as long as there is a market. Right now, most diseases can be managed and we are medicating largely to improve comfort, treat imaginary and wealth diseases. Markets have become incredibly specialized and those that havenâ(TM)t have been micro-managed to pieces by the FDA so there is no competition.
Half of US healthcare expenses can be reduced w
Of course not (Score:2)
The people who would benefit the most from not having healthcare tied to their jobs would vote against it. Declaring bankruptcy from medical debt is the American way!
Re: (Score:2)
In my country, you have healthcare. Period. You just have it. It may not be very glamorous and staying at a hospital sure ain't no vacation, but one thing is for sure: You won't die and you'll be restored as good as it's possible.
I recently learned that you even have to pay for an ambulance in the US. That's insane! I mean, yes, if you call an ambulance here if you could as well get a cab, they charge. Marginally more than a cab, mind you, we're still talking tens of bucks, not hundreds. But anything that q
Re: (Score:2)
What the HELL costs so much about medical treatment in the US, I ask?
Paperwork and ass covering.
I've read that up to around 40% of our healthcare dollars goes towards "administrative expenses". Basically, an arms race between the insurance companies spending money trying to NOT pay providers, and providers spending money to navigate through the resulting labyrinths to get paid.
It's so bad that my brother, who was without insurance, was able to get discounts of 50% and more simply by paying cash up front.
You just have to realize that you need to negotiate - because most insu
Re: (Score:2)
Paperwork and ass covering.
I've read that up to around 40% of our healthcare dollars goes towards "administrative expenses".
It's not as if the money gets sucked into a black hole, though. The entirety of the for-profit healthcare industry employs a lot of people and those salaries have to come from somewhere.
Aside from the issue of what to do with all the people who would be put out of work by ditching our current system, the other major problem is that the Republicans will attempt to dismantle or at the very least, do their darndest to sabotage a universal healthcare system, any time they're in power.
Re: (Score:2)
For the people out of work part of what we can offer with whatever system we develop is a path to transition out billing and admin into actual medical work, NP's, PA's. They're smart and hey, they'll still have healthcare!
Republicans have also tried and still kinda try to dismantle Social Security and Medicare but those programs are very popular and they know it's politically stupid.
Just like they crowed about the ACA for years and years and then after having no plan now the tune is "get rid of the ACA but
Re: (Score:2)
Paying out-of-pocket won't save you. Costs are still astronomically high here. 50% off stupidly-expensive is still expensive. Believe me, I've tried it before. You will be paying thousands of dollars out of pocket for any serious outpatient procedure, or hundreds just to get your foot into a doctor's office.
Medicaid/Medicare won't save you either. Doctors and hospitals that have majority public-option healthcare patients tend to go out of business.
EVERYTHING costs too much no matter how you pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Paperwork and ass covering.
Also, ineffective and outdated treatments, which result in more visits to the doctor and more treatments, because the underlying issue isn't dealt with.
As someone who has experience of healthcare in the UK and the US, what we see is that healthcare in the US is often poor quality, but delivered in much nicer surroundings.
Re: (Score:2)
From what it sounds, 20% of the average income in the US couldn't even cover medical insurance, let alone the rest of that stuff.
I pay about 4%. I have very good insurance.
Don't believe what you read on Facebook or hear on the "news."
Re: (Score:2)
I pay about 4%. I have very good insurance.
4% of what?
When you are in your 60s, insurance is going to cost you or your employer around $20,000 per person.
Or when you talk about 4%, are you being disingenuous, since you mean that your share is 4% and your employer is paying another 15-20%?
Re: (Score:2)
I am in my 60s. My employer doesn't pay anywhere near $20,000 a year for their portion.
Perhaps our HR department (and insurance agent) are better at shopping for insurance than yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Hold on, for 4% of your paycheck you get healthcare, unemployment, retirement, accident, disability, etc. insurance?
That's pretty awesome. And, question, does that apply to everyone equally or just to you because you're 20, healthy, with no permanent disabilities like diabetes?
Re: (Score:2)
You were talking about healthcare, only. Now you're moving the goalposts.
Thanks for admitting you're full of shit, and you know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that comes out of my paycheck. I pay about 20% of my income in "social insurance". Which covers healthcare, accidents and sickness (i.e. I have paid sick days. No matter how long), unemployment, retirement and a couple more things I pretty much forgot now.
Care to point out the goalpost I moved?
Re: Of course not (Score:2)
If you paid 20% of an average wage towards healthcare insurance, youâ(TM)d get excellent care as well. Ambulances in the US are free as well during emergencies, they get billed back to insurance, if you donâ(TM)t have insurance, the government and private hospitals (local, state or federal) picks up the tab. Which is one of the reason private insurance is going up, they cover 150%+ of their own costs to pay back government-backed healthcare solutions which pay at best 70% of true cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Healthcare, retirement fund, unemployment insurance, accident insurance, disability insurance and all the other "whatever you may need if you can't work anymore" shit.
Not just health insurance.
Short answer: (Score:2)
No.
Long answer:
Look at the history of the USA.
No. (Score:2)
Generic drug prices have only been dropped because CostPlusDrugs has been gutting businesses like CVS. Anything that isn't generic or is Schedule II (because it cannot be sent via mail) is still absurdly priced.
Healthcare for mental health will continue to only be accessible to those who can afford it and if we're being honest, drug companies are still making random chemical combinations and seeing if they do anything interesting.
Things may change in the future but it won't be significant until healthcare i
Re: (Score:2)
Things may change in the future but it won't be significant until healthcare is paid for by taxes.
You want to know what's really shitty? Roughly half of healthcare IS paid for by taxes.
41% according to this [statnews.com]
Consider:
Medicare: ~19% (And are mostly the older expensive people)
Medicaid: ~19% (A mix of disabled and poor people)
VA/Tricare/Federal: 6%
Hell, according to the article, there's another $600 in public(government) spending for healthcare that isn't part of that 41%
On top of that $1.8 trillion, third-party programs, which are often government-funded, and public health programs accounted for another $600 billion in spending.
41% * 1.33 = 55%
You want to know what's really shitty, I think? If we got our healthcare down to like the top 80% of Europe (IE only
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't think people today realize how much of an outlier the US spending on healthcare is:
https://www.healthsystemtracke... [healthsystemtracker.org]
Behind the US is Switzerland, Germany, Norway and the Netherlands and the US spends $4,000 more per-capita than the next closest. Do you feel like you get 33% more healthcare in the US, for all the bullshit we put up with dealing with our insurance companies?
How to fix things should be not that complicated, other countries have already done it, we can take the parts we like from
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, indeed. My personal plan would be to start expanding the federal healthcare programs to cover more and more people. Start dropping the age at which you're eligible for medicare. Increase the income you're eligible for medicaid at. (Medicare: Old people public healthcare, Medicaid: Poor people public healthcare). Hell, expand eligibility for VA coverage(veterans of the military), and tricare(active duty military and dependents).
Okay, I'm not typical for the US system, but not really an outlier eith
It's American healthcare so... (Score:2, Troll)
Awesome medical technology for the ultra-wealthy, some of which will be available to the middle class IF they're currently employed and willing to go bankrupt to access it.
The poor remain largely completely fucked.
Prerequisite Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Before attempting to answer the question in the headline, you have to consider that one of the two major parties which may end up in control of Congress next year is 100% dedicated to eliminating any government assistance in healthcare and put everything in the hands of for-profit private entities. The very idea that someone, somewhere will get some benefit they do not "deserve" drives them crazy.
Of course, their "government out of private lives" policy does not include matters involving a woman's uterus. There, they will dictate what may and may not be done (mostly may not) and and healthcare workers must choose between reusing to provide life-saving healthcare or become a fugitive. The woman in need of the health care will also be subject to arrest, prosecution, and jail.
I will probably get moderated "Troll" for this because that is just how we roll here, but it is true. No exaggeration or hyperbole. Just true.
Re: (Score:2)
The very idea that someone, somewhere will get some benefit they do not "deserve" drives them crazy.
That's just how the politicians spin it to the conservative portion of the electorate. Republicans actually love giving money away to people who truly don't deserve it, they just do it in the form of tax breaks and other various schemes which tend to benefit big businesses and the 1%, rather than you and me.
Re: (Score:2)
The very idea that someone, somewhere will get some benefit they do not "deserve" drives them crazy.
Unless of course it's a corporation they have a large stock in, then they get the "too big to fail" label and get showed in money to ensure the CEOs don't have to forgo their golden parachutes.
Re: (Score:2)
I always love the weight loss shtick (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Take our drugs AND, with diet, lifestyle changes and exercise you might lost weight. So which factor is actually helping me lose the weight? Such a racket.
It always comes down to diet and exercise. Catch is, some people just don't have the mental discipline to stick to a diet unless they've include some drastic lifestyle changes to really feel like they've put themselves into fat-b-gone boot camp. Ditching sugar substitutes, drinking awful-tasting meal replacement shakes, and having to pop diet pills all serve as reminders that you're committed to sticking to your weight loss regimen.
On the other hand, the people who can suck down a 24oz cup of diet coke an
Re: I always love the weight loss shtick (Score:2)
What other routine medical treatments are you interested in denying people because of their lack of "mental discipline"? Type 1 diabetics that don't have the
Re: (Score:2)
The mental discipline? Try having enough time and money to do it.
Have you tried eating healthy? I have. I fortunately also have the money and time to do it. Not to mention that I can actually cook. Three qualifications a lot of Americans lack. They cannot cook, and they neither have time nor money.
And yes, you need that to get healthy food. Because as soon as you have to rely on processed crap, you're fucked. No later than the second ingredient, you have sugar on the list. Or, rather, HFCS, which is even wo
Re: (Score:2)
Hm just realised I replied to a different post of yours saying the exact same thing. Clearly this is not news to you.
You can cook cheap, healthy and quickly, if you're prepared to get two out of three.
Re: (Score:2)
The GLP-1s make eating less hard to avoid. I'm on Ozempic for Type 2 diabetes, and I literally can't eat more than about half what I used to without getting nauseous. And I have basically no inclination to snack between meals any more.
So it's not "take our drugs AND diet," it's "take our drugs and you WILL diet because you can't stop yourself."
But I supposed that improving (other) peoples' health annoys you, especially if it's easy.
No (Score:2)
Bring what? (Score:2)
Exactly what will "bring" this "turning point" into existence? The "drug prices" legislation may be significant in that the US government can no longer be blackmailed by big-pharma. That pending loss of leverage should cause a propaganda campaign. It's difficult to know how big-pharma will market price-gouging as an American right and necessity but they'll do something. Past propaganda shows that corporations don't need to mention the laws or themselves to destroy political will: Saying there's a anony
It already came (Score:2)
There was a major turning point in the health of most countries already in 2020. The C-word. The thing that turned life expectancy down in almost all countries (somewhere sooner, somewhere a couple of years later). The thing that doesn't become the F-word no matter how many times you repeat it. The thing that increases your risk to Alzheimer's disease, dementia, diabetes, heart attack, Parkinson's, you name it, by tens of percents. Yeah, it's COVID, and it is not "just" a flu. And even the flu is not that b
Re: (Score:2)
What good is a microbe-free air, filtered in every room, when then some asshat who "doesn't believe in masks" comes into the room and coughs in your face?
You could as well invite someone to piss into your water reservoir.
No, because of for-profit health care (Score:2)
For-profit anything will prioritize profit over any other metric. For-profit health care in America will, not surprisingly, prioritize more profits for Big Pharma over better health for Americans. Hence, you will get new weight-loss drugs instead of any form of preventive medicine, even though the latter could have better outcome in terms of general health and wellbeing, because helping Americans avoid getting sick in the first place actually means less profits for pharma!
So, no, the American health care
From a volunteer EMT (Score:2)
Speaking as a volunteer EMT, to me it looks like the system is on the edge of complete collapse. It's getting harder and harder to get people to volunteer - I get it, everyone is busy - and as the same time there simply are not enough people going into the career to fill the gaps. Jobs that used to get dozens of applicants for each open position now languish for months without a single applicant. Ambulances are overburdened and understaffed, and we drop those patients in EDs that are wall to wall patient
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as a volunteer EMT you probably know the reason. Long hours, crappy pay and even more crappy patients who think the world only revolves around them because little Timmy has the hiccups so that guy with a severed arm should fucking wait. Not to mention that they first rather believe some quack selling them some snake oil but as soon as (not if, not even when) they then really get sick, they MUST get preferential treatment because they are important and of course it's YOUR fault that they got sick. Not
Re: (Score:2)
Some of that is absolutely true - the long hours, crappy pay. When I did my clinical hours, I rode an ambulance where an starting EMT makes the same as a starting driver for Amazon, and no one pukes on their shoes. So, even as a volunteer, I see how that's all nuts. But I will say that by and large the patients are lovely people. Frightened, uncertain, and sure, sometimes using us as a taxi, but they felt badly enough to call us (there are others who are so distrustful of medical professionals that they
As an outsider... (Score:2)
The USA does not really have healthcare. It has a medical-financial sector.
In the developed world, healthcare means caring for your health. With, exceptions, people in your country are understood to have "medical insurance". This is a nonsense combination of words like "camouflage underpants" or "plastic grass".
Plastic grass can look like real grass but, as a cow farmer can tell you, it is useless and doesn't do anything.
I'm sure there are camouflage underpants for 4-year-olds with them but they are the
I just totaled up my out of pocket for 2023 (Score:2)
While lots of people have no problem with Medicare, I have a primary immune deficiency and have no idea how it works for people like me.
every year (Score:2)
Every year will be a major turning point and a tipping point. Same old same old.
Healthcare in Mexico costs a lot less! (Score:2)
Healthcare in Mexico costs a lot less!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But how is the quality of care?
Dollar for dollar? Much better.
US healthcare is no beacon of quality. It's far down the list of the world's best, but tops the list of most expensive.
Re: Healthcare in Mexico costs a lot less! (Score:2)
I donâ(TM)t see Americans flocking to Mexico for healthcare though, quite the opposite. Perhaps you should inform yourself before making stupid statements.
Re: (Score:2)
> Perhaps you should inform yourself before making stupid statements.
What do you mean ? Some searching seems to support his comment :
"The U.S. government estimates that close to 1 million people in California alone cross to Mexico annually for health care, including to buy prescription drugs. And between 150,000 and 320,000 Americans list health care as a reason for traveling abroad each year. Cost savings is the most commonly cited reason" https://www.npr.org/sections/h... [npr.org]
"U.S. prices were 250 percent
Re:Healthcare in Mexico costs a lot less! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Holy crap that's interesting. Watched the trailer & now I have to find the time to watch the movie, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Healthcare in Europe has better quality (less redoing because of medical errors), but the cost is 1/3 of the cost in USA. Cost is explained because Europe has public health care paid from tax money, while in the US it is based on insurance. The quality part is harder to explain, but I assume it is because private companies want to save in operational costs, while in government funded hospitals they can focus more on keeping people as health as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
A for-profit medical service has an interest in creating return business...
Re: Healthcare in Mexico costs a lot less! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because more people buy my drugs doesn't mean I don't want to profit from having a load of addicts. Why should I send one dopehead away just because I have 2 others waiting for my drugs?
Re: Healthcare in Mexico costs a lot less! (Score:2)
My wife is a doctor. We watched a US documentary on strange diseases, medical mysteries. My wife was frustrated at the slowness. i.e. It took months before serious me
Re: (Score:2)
Because shrooms and molly have been oh so difficult to find up to this point.
Just google "drunk pilot" and get mad about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering what a shitshow the US is right now, I can only recommend getting more of that stuff out on the street. What do you think is going to go down when the critical mass of people is armed and pissed off enough to take up those arms, and then they're sober enough to actually do it?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody said that the change is for the better, did they?