Rush said that lifestyle doesn't have any effect on health care costs

[John2598]

Just stop and think for a minute: Does this sound true or false?

He said this on the radio today: Liberal Democrats promised that health care costs would go down if people would stop smoking. Well, he claims they lied because today there are only about half as many people smoking and health care costs have not gone down. He didn't mention any scientific study; it's just something he came up with. And he wants us to think this way about ALL lifestyle choices: Lifestyle choices don't have anything to do with health care costs.


Did Rush knowingly misleading his audience? Did he conveniently forget to take into account the fact that as the number of smokers slowly declined the rates of obesity and diabetes slowly increased?

What do you think? Did liberal Democrats lie or did Rush lie?

[DRS]

Half as many people smoke as compared to when?

[John2598]

Half as many people smoke as compared to when?

That would be as compared to many years ago when about 50% of the population smoked. And now, as Rush said, only about 25% of the population smokes. Those are the figures he used. So it sounds like something that took place over several decades.

[DRS]

Yes but how much as the population grown

If the number 500,000 of one million then it is 50%

But

If it is 1,000,000 of 4,000,000 then it only 24% but you now have twice as many smokers needing care from smoking related diseases

[TheBurningRed]

According the ACS (American Cancer Society) in 1965 about 42% of the population smoked cigarettes, now as of 2006 it dropped to 21% of the population. So while this report was revised in November 2008, who knows if the numbers have changed or not. So while Rush was right about the smoking, I do think lifestyle choices do affect healthcare costs, the more harmful or potential hazardous jobs/risks you take, sure your individual healthcare costs will go up.

[pattyk]

you got it wrong.

we were told back in the 70's that if we would quit smoking, healthcare costs would go down.

well, 50% quit from then til now, and the healthcare costs have gone way up.

that's what he meant, that's what he said.

[CID_0687]

Pantywaists running to the Dr. cause they got the sniffles run up health care costs.

[DRS]

Healthcare costs go up do to aging populations, poor diets, poor exercise habits

[Sinister Rouge]

Healthcare costs go up do to aging populations, poor diets, poor exercise habits


And price-gouging from Big Pharma...
If a person stops smoking (or better yet, doesn't start) I bet he'd have lower health care costs than a person with similar medical issues who smokes. Pretty obvious there.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

have health care costs gone down for those who quit smoking?

[sgtmac_46]

Healthcare costs go up do to aging populations, poor diets, poor exercise habits

Health care costs go up because we are willing to pay to live longer.

[sgtmac_46]

And price-gouging from Big Pharma...
If a person stops smoking (or better yet, doesn't start) I bet he'd have lower health care costs than a person with similar medical issues who smokes. Pretty obvious there.

You mean the 'Big Pharma' who's research has produced the wonder drugs that keep you living longer? I guess they should do it for free, huh?

[Spiked101]

Health care costs go up because we are willing to pay to live longer.

Ding ding ding ding. We have a winner!

[gdoane]

P.S. The word "affect" should be "effect" in the heading. I tried to change it but couldn't.

I'm pretty sure I can change that.

[AeroEngineer]

you got it wrong.

we were told back in the 70's that if we would quit smoking, healthcare costs would go down.

well, 50% quit from then til now, and the healthcare costs have gone way up.

that's what he meant, that's what he said.

That's because we started eating when we stopped smoking. :D

[John2598]

you got it wrong.

we were told back in the 70's that if we would quit smoking, healthcare costs would go down.

well, 50% quit from then til now, and the healthcare costs have gone way up.

that's what he meant, that's what he said.

So, in your opinion, what was the point he was making? Why did health care costs go way up instead of down?

[John2598]

I'm pretty sure I can change that.


Thanks! That was a pleasant surprise.

:flag:

[egs21]

Just stop and think for a minute: Does this sound true or false?

He said this on the radio today: Liberal Democrats promised that health care costs would go down if people would stop smoking. Well, he claims they lied because today there are only about half as many people smoking and health care costs have not gone down. He didn't mention any scientific study; it's just something he came up with. And he wants us to think this way about ALL lifestyle choices: Lifestyle choices don't have anything to do with health care costs.


Did Rush knowingly misleading his audience? Did he conveniently forget to take into account the fact that as the number of smokers slowly declined the rates of obesity and diabetes slowly increased?

What do you think? Did liberal Democrats lie or did Rush lie?

I don't know what exactly he means by "lifestyle" but obviously your lifestyle choices have a huge impact on your health. If you don't eat right, exercise, ect. you have a much greater change at developing seriousness illnesses later in life. Rush has this completely wrong and its just another one of his attempts to "stir up controversy" to help his ratings. The guy is in this for the money, he really doesn't care that much about political policies, ect.

[DRS]

Health care costs go up because we are willing to pay to live longer.

So the increase in cancers that have been seen that they are starting to trace back to hormone injections into animals is having no effects?

Having all this people sitting at computers all day and kids playing video games instead of being outside exercising and working is has having no effect on us, even though we are designed to be active?

[John2598]

Health care costs go up because we are willing to pay to live longer.

That was your reply to DRS who said: "Healthcare costs go up do to aging population, poor diets, poor exercise habits."

If you would put your statement together with his, then you would have something. There's truth in both of your statements. Take an aging population with poor eating and exercise habits and then see what happens when they are "willing to pay to live longer".

I knew an older man who had poor eating habits and had cardiovascular disease. He went from surgical proceedure to surgical proceedure over a period of about 18 years. About a total of 5 expensive proceedures . That's because he never considered changing his eating habits. He was on Medicare; so of course he was "willing to pay to live longer". For the most part, except for the deductable, he was spending medicare money. It's people like him who drive up Medicare (insurance) premiums and also the total cost of U.S. health care.

[Greyclouds]

Pantywaists running to the Dr. cause they got the sniffles run up health care costs.

The elderly run up health care costs far more than this scenario.

Also, preventative medicine is far less costly than the alternative. For instance: you have flu-like symptoms (ask any doctor: flu-like symptoms can be indicative of ANYTHING from meningitis to influenza!). You ignore them, thinking that they're just the common flu. Turns out, your misdiagnosis was incredibly grave, and you actually had bacterial meningitis!

If you had gone to the doctor at first, a regular therapy of antibiotics could have eliminated the infection. Since you waited, you now run the risk of brain damage, organ failure and other such maladies.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

Three points as to why our health care costs are higher today:

1) Baby Boomers...largest group to be born in the modern era. Everything from cardiovascular health, to creaking joints and sore joints to the heavy hitting diseases like cancer have struck and this group is only in their 60's. It's only going to get worse folks..... as they continue to age, more pressure will be exerted upon the medical field.

2) Predisposition verses lifestyle: Our species has evolved. We have built up immunities to certain viruses and bacteria's...our immune systems evolving over time. From the bubonic plague and influenza to AID's and MRSA, the human body has been bombarded with killer new forms of viruses and bacteria. The weak die out...the strong, adapt and survive, passing along their new strong gene's to the next generation; which will also have to go through the gauntlet of viruses and bacteria themselves. It's a story as old as time itself.

Predisposition to an illness is not exactly what any doctor or health care industry advocate wishes to discuss. In hushed tones it's questioned and quashed. Why? Because predisposition takes everything we know about lifestyle choices and turns them on their head! One can never eat red meat, smoke or drink alcohol or sugar beverages..and still come down with cardiac disease, emphysema or lung cancer or become a diabetic. Now that's not news..but it certainly isn't touted in the media either is it? One can eat every fried twinkie there is...drink like a fish...eat whatever and do nothing type of life...and guess what...they are like oxen..healthy and strong..living long lives. Now that certainly isn't touted on the media either..and for damn good reason...it kills their whole premise on the immediate need to re-vamp health care.

3) Health Care = $$$$ Like education, our health care system became less about medical care and more about a money making machine. Like education, taking on this type of industry and making it about money instead of making it about the health of a population is gonna make cracks show in the foundation of the system itself. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies figured out quickly how to make a bundle off the American public. I remember the huge excersise craze first hitting in the 70's...yet smoking wasn't even mentioned or in the top ten...neither was alcohol use...much less diet. Kids learned the pyramid of foods in the 70's...but it wasn't pushed as a health issue until the 80's.

my point is...a well oiled machine (ie the health industry/insurance/pharmaceuticals) came up with a long term sustainability plan..and they've worked it to the enth!

Do I agree people should get up and get about more...eat sensibly and treat their bodies better? Sure. But who in the hell am I to tell someone what they can or can't do with their lives and their bodies? Who is the government to tell us what we can and can't do in order to supposedly save a few bucks? (Its all bull pucky ya know...won't save us a dime..gonna cost us a mint!) I'm trim...always have been..born that way..can eat fairly much whatever I want and not gain an ounce. I rarely imbibe alcohol (special occasion's I'll have 'a' glass of wine or 'a' glass of champagne) I've always been active..being a nurse one kinda has to move about and walk a few miles a day at work. :whistle: I eat very little (never been a big eater) and am very careful of what I put into my body. Does that mean I should be healthy?

......Would it shock any of you to know that each day is a gift to me? I should have been dead several times over by now? Been sick for 14 years due to one damn brown recluse spider bite...I'm deteriorating slowly...my disease more like MS...to a point I will soak up more medical dollars and services then the 3 ton Tess who eats poorly an sits on her keester watching soaps all day. :neutral: No bull.

So exactly how much of this new fanaticism is due to hard rhetoric in order to push a plan...and a new mentality of government telling it's population what will and won't happen in their lives ( what they will and won't eat/when they will and won't excersise/ how much health care they can receive due to eating to much, to little, using drugs, imbibing in alcohol and cigarettes, having to many kids or not enough...on and on) and how much of it is actually fact and backed by hard real numbers from the last 40 + years?

I don't buy any of the excuses I've heard thus far to have government run health care. I do believe every "American" should have access to health care...and they do...vis a vie the ER.

and...don't believe everything you hear these days on the MSM's. The medical field is a complicated multi layered technical business...has to be....and it's not the wolf it's been made out to be. Insurance...well now that a whole new black hat, trench coat and briefcase type of villain that has had a little light shed on it these past weeks...and like a vampire seeing the sun rise..they're smoking, screaming and running for their lives. :lol:

~Mysty

[John2598]

Three points as to why our health care costs are higher today:


Predisposition to an illness is not exactly what any doctor or health care industry advocate wishes to discuss. In hushed tones it's questioned and quashed. Why? Because predisposition takes everything we know about lifestyle choices and turns them on their head! One can never eat red meat, smoke or drink alcohol or sugar beverages..and still come down with cardiac disease, emphysema or lung cancer or become a diabetic. Now that's not news..but it certainly isn't touted in the media either is it? One can eat every fried twinkie there is...drink like a fish...eat whatever and do nothing type of life...and guess what...they are like oxen..healthy and strong..living long lives.


my point is...a well oiled machine (ie the health industry/insurance/pharmaceuticals) came up with a long term sustainability plan..and they've worked it to the enth!

Do I agree people should get up and get about more...eat sensibly and treat their bodies better? Sure. But who in the hell am I to tell someone what they can or can't do with their lives and their bodies? Who is the government to tell us what we can and can't do in order to supposedly save a few bucks? (Its all bull pucky ya know...won't save us a dime..gonna cost us a mint!) I'm trim...always have been..born that way..can eat fairly much whatever I want and not gain an ounce. I rarely imbibe alcohol (special occasion's I'll have 'a' glass of wine or 'a' glass of champagne) I've always been active..being a nurse one kinda has to move about and walk a few miles a day at work. :whistle: I eat very little (never been a big eater) and am very careful of what I put into my body. Does that mean I should be healthy?

~Mysty

About predisposition: You can have a certain gene for breast cancer or other disease but never get the disease. Often, but not always, the gene needs to be turned on. It could be turned on by stress, fatty foods or a combination of other environmental factors. That's why a healthy lifestyle is important; we don't want to activate whatever bad genes we happen to have.

Some people live unhealthy lifestyles and seem to do well while some people live healthy lifestyles and do poorly: That's just the tough part about the science of health and nutrition. There are always exceptions! In order to avoid the confusion one must go by LARGE POPULATION STUDIES. Otherwise one is doomed to be lost in confusion.
And when people are confused they usually end up thinking, "well, if no one knows what's best, I might as well eat the fast food that I enjoy". I'm not including you because you said that you eat healthy. I'm just saying that we should be careful not to confuse others.

[Greyclouds]

About predisposition: You can have a certain gene for breast cancer or other disease but never get the disease. Often, but not always, the gene needs to be turned on. It could be turned on by stress, fatty foods or a combination of other environmental factors. That's why a healthy lifestyle is important; we don't want to activate whatever bad genes we happen to have.

Some people live unhealthy lifestyles and seem to do well while some people live healthy lifestyles and do poorly: That's just the tough part about the science of health and nutrition. There are always exceptions! In order to avoid the confusion one must go by LARGE POPULATION STUDIES. Otherwise one is doomed to be lost in confusion.
And when people are confused they usually end up thinking, "well, if no one knows what's best, I might as well eat the fast food that I enjoy". I'm not including you because you said that you eat healthy. I'm just saying that we should be careful not to confuse others.

Two problems with that approach:

1. Large population studies are not statistically better than smaller studies done with statistical verification. Also, human beings are a PAIN to work with for scientific purposes! They lie, they cheat and they otherwise do random things that mess up the findings of studies! The more people you involve in the study, the more likely they are to skew the study out of their own misguided sense of "how to act!" Trust me: smaller studies are just as good, and much more cost-effective than larger studies of this type!

2. The American people rarely read scientific studies from their sources, and rarely heed the advice given in them. When was the last time you read a news article and then searched google for the ACTUAL scientific journal article?

[paulbenedict]

Current law defines what is "medical insurance." These laws define minimum levels of care. Within this minimum comes a multitude of things many folks don't need.

I'd like to see "luxury" plans that include the newest drugs and the use of every machine the hospital can buy. "Business" class insurance with clearly perscribed emergency room, broken bone, car crash stuff spelled out while certain types of long term care are not included. Generic perscription drugs chosen over newer drugs for... and spell it out.

Single bloke coverage: no maternity care included... etc.

I'd love to see options with no psychological counselling ever included.

There could even be a San Francisco plan.

I'd like to see hospitals and clinics offer plans to employers cutting out the middle men insurance companies. Our services are: you are covered by paying X per year. (Pre-existing conditions could still be mandated. The problem here is portability-- You are on vacation and...)

All of the above is NOT ALLOWED by laws passed in the Carter years.

[CID_0687]

The elderly run up health care costs far more than this scenario.

Also, preventative medicine is far less costly than the alternative. For instance: you have flu-like symptoms (ask any doctor: flu-like symptoms can be indicative of ANYTHING from meningitis to influenza!). You ignore them, thinking that they're just the common flu. Turns out, your misdiagnosis was incredibly grave, and you actually had bacterial meningitis!

If you had gone to the doctor at first, a regular therapy of antibiotics could have eliminated the infection. Since you waited, you now run the risk of brain damage, organ failure and other such maladies.
Make certain prescription drugs OTC, like some antibiotics, cough syrups, decongestants and even some of the more mild pain medications and problem solved.

People aren't going to the Dr. because of one the high costs, two, the amount of time wasted...and why is so much time wasted? Because people are running up the costs by going for things that are common to them.

I usually have to make one or two trips to the doc every year for bronchitis...and that's the only time you'll see me going. I already know that I need a Z-Pack (antibiotic) a decongestant and a cough suppressant...I could save $200 a year, and 6-8 hours by being able to go to Walgreen's and pick up what I know I need.

Elderly already get gubmint paid health care, does great things for them doesn't it? :rolleyes:

[Greyclouds]

Make certain prescription drugs OTC, like some antibiotics, cough syrups, decongestants and even some of the more mild pain medications and problem solved.

People aren't going to the Dr. because of one the high costs, two, the amount of time wasted...and why is so much time wasted? Because people are running up the costs by going for things that are common to them.

I usually have to make one or two trips to the doc every year for bronchitis...and that's the only time you'll see me going. I already know that I need a Z-Pack (antibiotic) a decongestant and a cough suppressant...I could save $200 a year, and 6-8 hours by being able to go to Walgreen's and pick up what I know I need.

Elderly already get gubmint paid health care, does great things for them doesn't it? :rolleyes:

As a person working in a microbiology lab, I can tell you that making antibiotics OTC is the absolute WORST THING WE CAN DO AS HUMAN BEINGS!!!

Macrolide antibiotics (as found in the Z-pack) are bacteriostatic (at high concentrations, they become bacteriocidal) reversible repressors of the bacterial t-RNA peptidyl transfer mechanism.

In english: they're easy for a bacterial population to adapt to, if they're present in low concentrations because the bacteria SURVIVE and can sustain mutations that allow them to grow!

Since most people don't understand the actions of this antibiotic, and cannot correctly diagnose diseases that would be inhibited due to this antibiotic, they'd over-use it! Resistance to the z-pack (azithromycin) would be propagated in many bacterial populations, and the presence of multiple resistant strains would increase!

NOT a good idea!!!!

If you got a viral version of bronchitis, the z-pack would do nothing, and you'd increase the number of resistance alleles (to the z-pack) in your gut microflora. You could also remove much of your gut microflora by taking regiments of the z-pack, and the pathogens that currently live in your intestines could "bloom" and cause medical problems. Your physician really shouldn't be prescribing the z-pack to you on such a regular basis; have you considered nasal surgery? I suffer from chronic rhinusitis myself, and know that there are ways of "shaving" the portions of your nasal sinuses to allow for better drainage.

[CID_0687]

As a person working in a microbiology lab, I can tell you that making antibiotics OTC is the absolute WORST THING WE CAN DO AS HUMAN BEINGS!!!

Macrolide antibiotics (as found in the Z-pack) are bacteriostatic (at high concentrations, they become bacteriocidal) reversible repressors of the bacterial t-RNA peptidyl transfer mechanism.

In english: they're easy for a bacterial population to adapt to, if they're present in low concentrations because the bacteria SURVIVE and can sustain mutations that allow them to grow!

Since most people don't understand the actions of this antibiotic, and cannot correctly diagnose diseases that would be inhibited due to this antibiotic, they'd over-use it! Resistance to the z-pack (azithromycin) would be propagated in many bacterial populations, and the presence of multiple resistant strains would increase!

NOT a good idea!!!!

If you got a viral version of bronchitis, the z-pack would do nothing, and you'd increase the number of resistance alleles (to the z-pack) in your gut microflora. You could also remove much of your gut microflora by taking regiments of the z-pack, and the pathogens that currently live in your intestines could "bloom" and cause medical problems. Your physician really shouldn't be prescribing the z-pack to you on such a regular basis; have you considered nasal surgery? I suffer from chronic rhinusitis myself, and know that there are ways of "shaving" the portions of your nasal sinuses to allow for better drainage.
:rolleyes:

It can still be regulated. Just like they regulate Sudafed now to keep the Methheads from buying in bulk.

I don't know about you, but I don't enjoy taking medicine, especially an antibiotic...Why would someone overuse an antibiotic, I haven't had one that ever made me feel high.

I don't agree with the majority of Canada's health care system, but I do agree that federal regulation on medication is a bit too excessive.

People that have common ailments like High Blood Pressure, and are taking a medication that works for them shouldn't have to go to the doctor every 3 or 4 months to get refills on their script.

Everybody's afraid that if most drugs are made OTC that people will abuse them. Horse**** and Gunsmoke!! Most are like me and will only take something when absolutely necessary. I can get a decent buzz off of NyQuil but you don't see me going to the pharmacy and picking up a bottle everyday.

The whole argument to keep drugs regulated by a prescription is so the Dr. can make a higher profit. I'm not opposed to these guys being well off, but when you have a recurring illness, like I do with bronchitis, it would be so much more convenient to go to the drug store and cut out the middle man.

[mkh]

Does the rise in healthcare cost gone up due to those who quit smoking? Or is he trying to connect just 1 variable to the cost of health care instead of all of them. That's what I thought.

[Voxpopuli]

you got it wrong.

we were told back in the 70's that if we would quit smoking, healthcare costs would go down.

well, 50% quit from then til now, and the healthcare costs have gone way up.

that's what he meant, that's what he said.

Isn't that misleading though?

There is no consideration for what external variables besides smokers would have increased healthcare costs. It seems to be faulty reasoning to say "people quit smoking, healthcare rose therefore the healthcare costs associated with smoking are nil."

[John2598]

Two problems with that approach:

1. Large population studies are not statistically better than smaller studies done with statistical verification. Also, human beings are a PAIN to work with for scientific purposes! They lie, they cheat and they otherwise do random things that mess up the findings of studies! The more people you involve in the study, the more likely they are to skew the study out of their own misguided sense of "how to act!" Trust me: smaller studies are just as good, and much more cost-effective than larger studies of this type!

2. The American people rarely read scientific studies from their sources, and rarely heed the advice given in them. When was the last time you read a news article and then searched google for the ACTUAL scientific journal article?

1. Ok, on second thought, perhaps I should leave out the word "LARGE". Although, I've been on other message boards where some have argued that my examples of large studies were not large enough. So the question comes down to how large is large and how small is small?

Having said that, I certainly agree that there can be problems with studies where you have to take a person's word concerning their lifestyle. People answering questions on a form might not remember exactly what they ate and soforth. And, as you said, they might not tell the whole truth.

I can tell you from personal experience because I'm a cohort in a large (AARP) health study. I've been in it for about 15 years now. When I first joined I ate all kinds of animal protein (meat and dairy). Then about 3 1/2 years ago I changed to a plant based diet. I couldn't find any way to inform them of this and I don't recall them ever sending out any forms to update the lifestyle information. But, seriously, I wonder what percentage of the (study) population will make drastic changes and then stick to those changes.

2. I usually don't do any research on the internet because of time constraints. I wish I could and probably will in the future. I usually get my information from books that I read that are written by doctors. "The China Study" is a good example. Another is "The Okinawa Program". In both of those "large" population studies they did not rely on people filling out questionaires, from what I understand. People in China were interviewed in person, blood pressure, blood samples, urin samples etc. were taken, and research helpers were assigned to watch the people eat! It's amazing but true. In Okinawa it was much the same as Okinawan elders were examined in person and Okinawans tend to eat simple (standard) whole food diets. So there's not that much to be confused about.

Those are the studies I value the most but that's not to say that there can't be smaller studies that are very good too.

I once talked to the doctor in charge at NIH and he said that flawed studies are not rare! And flawed studies are designed by scientific-thinking doctors. We were talking about small clinical studies. Before they become large scale, they usually get checked out because there's a lot of money involved. Now don't misunderstand, even smal clinical studies get checked out carefully at the NIH.

As far as the American people rarely following the advice given in studies, I believe it - absolutely. But I happen to be one of those rare people. I pretty much eat only whole foods: A wide variety fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, nuts and seeds. And I enjoy it!

[Greyclouds]

:rolleyes:

It can still be regulated. Just like they regulate Sudafed now to keep the Methheads from buying in bulk.

I don't know about you, but I don't enjoy taking medicine, especially an antibiotic...Why would someone overuse an antibiotic, I haven't had one that ever made me feel high.

I don't agree with the majority of Canada's health care system, but I do agree that federal regulation on medication is a bit too excessive.

People that have common ailments like High Blood Pressure, and are taking a medication that works for them shouldn't have to go to the doctor every 3 or 4 months to get refills on their script.

Everybody's afraid that if most drugs are made OTC that people will abuse them. Horse**** and Gunsmoke!! Most are like me and will only take something when absolutely necessary. I can get a decent buzz off of NyQuil but you don't see me going to the pharmacy and picking up a bottle everyday.

The whole argument to keep drugs regulated by a prescription is so the Dr. can make a higher profit. I'm not opposed to these guys being well off, but when you have a recurring illness, like I do with bronchitis, it would be so much more convenient to go to the drug store and cut out the middle man.

It only takes one person as an "incubator" for a new breed of resistant virulent pathogens:

http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19080

http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0950-2688(199308)111%3A1%3C55%3AOONIWT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1

http://www.citeulike.org/user/gwenknight/article/4882627


I am not doubting that you are a responsible user of medications; however, are you SURE that you want to vouch for EVERYONE? Like I said, it only takes one stupid person to inadvertently brew up an outbreak.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

About predisposition: You can have a certain gene for breast cancer or other disease but never get the disease. Often, but not always, the gene needs to be turned on. It could be turned on by stress, fatty foods or a combination of other environmental factors. That's why a healthy lifestyle is important; we don't want to activate whatever bad genes we happen to have.

*Warning...long post reply...my apologies in advance:...:redface: *

As it applies to breast cancer...your analogy is correct in that some unknown factor or even known factor must be present in order for that inactive genetic code to be 'turned on'. (birth control pills for instance..can turn on those gene's..and the person can be living a perfect healthy lifestyle...hmmmmm) As yet, medical science can take their best guess...yet are not 100% certain of exactly what or why causes certain genetic markers to be switched on promoting one disease, and why other genetic markers for other predisposed diseases seem to lay dormant no matter what the environment or health of the patient. We are not all cookie cutter replica's of one another..each body is unique. Medical science in many area's of health care is still very much 'best guess'.

Now, the exception here and were the public has been mislead is in the area of nutrition and excersise as being a factor in keeping certain predisposed genes from ever turning 'on'..which in this case is the gene that promotes that specific set of cancerous cells in the breast. Stress could be a factor..and usually is a factor in most of our modern day disease process. Stress reduces/lowers our immune system to a point of opening up our bodies to genetic predisposed illness/conditions that may be inlaid within our genetics..and opens our systems up more readily to viruses and or bacteria's. OTC use...yep..can and does turn on certain genetic markers for certain diseases. Use of purely holistic methods and treatments can turn on those markers...vitamins...drinking to much water...what have you can from unique person to unique person turn on unknowingly those markers. Scary stuff huh? Sometimes those markers turn on during a developmental stage within a person life..with no other harmful or unhealthy precursor in that person's environment noted. Now that's the truly scary stuff...as now a person has no control..which is what allot of health nuts truly fear..a loss of control.

So..lets, as an example, take a nasty virus; MRSA for instance. MRSA is not a natural occurring virus within our natural environment...it is/was created within the hospital/medical facility environment. No amount of healthy eating or lifestyle or excersise will keep one from contracting this virus when in a hospital settings with a lowered immune system that may be due to a active virus (ie bronchitis brought on by the cold virus, or influenza, or surgery, or open wound). Due to the modern treatment of these diseases/injuries, MRSA has been brought out of the hospital environment and let loosed upon the main populace through inadequate health care of these certain conditions; sending these patients home far to early with the active virus being treated in home vis a vie antivirals; that doesn't mean the virus itself is contained or non-spreadable to populace around said patient.

Contracting MRSA has nothing to do with genetics...just as contracting the common influenza or cold has nothing to do with genetics..and no amount of excersise, vitamins, healthy eating or other 'health promoting' ideologies will keep one from ever contracting said viruses. It is one of the main lies told to the populace in order to give a decreases in our health care demands. A bit of Darwinism is cleverly hidden within our medical mindset as it pertains to the medical insurance system...in that, if you die...it's less money out of their coffers. That's sad to say and admit..but very patently true.

Now take Parkinson's or Alzheimer or M.S....all disorders that affect the nervous system. No amount of healthy living guarantee's you that you won't contract these diseases; genetic predisposition or not. :shhh:The larger point here...we can keep ourselves as healthy as we wish..and it won't save us from contracting a genetic predisposed disease, virus or bacteria. That them there is the facts. What healthy living will/can garner us is less statistical numbers in what I term 'usury living' type disorders...like but not limited to sclerotic livers, non insulin dependent diabetes, joint and bone issues due to sever weight gain, back/spine disorders due to redundant activity, eating disorders, stress induced abscesses and stomach issues, migraines, abscess acne etc. Does that mean we can eradicate these disorders and diseases? No..it does not..it simply means we can try to reduce the amount of people who contract these diseases/conditions and the amount of money that is spent treating them. Really, I don't see those numbers changing in the least..no matter who is running the health care system, no matter what law that says what we can eat, drink or smoke. Our natural day to day environment is enough to bring about the conditions we see most in the medical field. :whistle:

I guess we could wrap everyone in bubble wrap...never allow cars or motorcycles, bus or train/airplane travel to operated by a human being...send out Nutrisystem type meals to every man, woman and child in the nation, have mandated weigh in's like Weight Watchers every week in every school and library across the nation, have a 5am mandated controlled excersise program for every person in this nation that is monitored by local government officials, and have the government tell us what type of work/job is the least stressful for our specific body type and genetics so we have limited need of any medical care. And guess what..even that wouldn't work..we would still get sick, cold's, flu's, viruses and bacterial infections..and yes...we would still have death....we would still have pain and suffering. Gee...not much a healthy lifestyle and excersise can really save us from is there? Can it improve certain people quality of life? Sure...it can. Can it elevate everyone's quality of health? No..no in some instances it would actually harm certain individuals. Go figure huh? :neutral:

Some people live unhealthy lifestyles and seem to do well while some people live healthy lifestyles and do poorly: *snipped*

GreyClouds gave an excellent response to this part of your post. I'll add to his response that those 'large population studies' you mention as a bell weather for our supposed medical needs in our nation are done for one purpose and one purpose only. MONEY. Yep...you read right..money. Grant money, proposal money, scholarship money...government money, corporation money, private money...you get the idea. Did you really think these types of studies were done to improve our health as a nation? Sweet to think so..but far from reality.

And....There is no one 'doomed' to confusion here. :rolleyes: Despite what the government would have you think..American's are more then aware of what is and is not 'good' for them. What works for one does not necessarily work for another..as you pointed out. So how can one standard be applied to 'all'? Answer is..they know they can't apply one standard for 'all'. Where the confusion is in this topic is within the 'hiding' of reality of how the insurance industry really works; the high profits they have been made upon fear mongering and made up science to promote health care programs for people to participate in; which gee..put up more consumer money into the health care market.

I know not one person who thinks..well gee..no one knows what is best for me so I'll do nothing stance. :eh: There are people...called doctors...who do know enough to keep a human being pain free..or close to pain free..treat the human conditions presented to their best end for the knowledge we have...and build on the knowledge of generations of doctors and medical professionals before them to ensure the further education and understanding of our bodies and the diseases we are faced with. People also have the ability to make up their own minds. Research out and find answers to their questions. We are not a dependent society waiting for some government official to tell us what is best for us. We have far to many conflicting agencies in and out of government making a mess of the 'what is best for you' mantra.

We have become and are for the most part, a nation of well educated people...independent thinking people. The only standard of confusion on our populaces part is how our medical care got so expensive...and so varied in how to treat the human body; and why the government is now so keen on taking over said system.

Fasten your seat belts kids...this is gonna be on bumpy ride. :shhh:

~Mysty

[mkh]

Maybe they havn't gone down because obesity has increased for decades now.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

Maybe they havn't gone down because obesity has increased for decades now.

I watched a few interesting reports on obesity in the last year or so. Each report tells the viewer that obesity has gone up...or is on the supposed rise. The why's of it in part are reported it is due to the way our food is produced/grown. 'Corn' being the biggest food stuff focused on in these reports. Corn as a filler is in almost everything we buy from the store. Corn as a natural food has it's benefits. As a filler..it's pure junk...pure sugar...and it's in almost everything you buy. Pundits on the T.V. are actually asking out loud why obesity is on the rise? Watch one of the many programs about obesity..and usually in the background they will show a shot of supposed 'fat' people roaming the city streets. Well, that's called walking folks...ya know..excersise? They aren't showing these people sitting on their bums stuffing their faces with Ho'ho's, twinkies and fried pork rinds watching t.v. and stuffing their faces.

So what is really the contributing factor to obesity in America anymore? Why is it the poor fight with obesity more so then the wealthy? (or so the reports would have you believe.) Why is it reported that only fat people are at risk or at a higher risk for type 2 diabetes? (*Which imo is a scam of gigantic proportions..a way to sell pharmaceuticals and bring money into the health insurance coffers. Should damn well be illegal when such a lie is perpetrated for money. Hell , they got Maddoff for ripping off his clients...when will they do the same for insurance and pharmaceuticals companies who perpetrate the same crime? :rolleyes: But I digress...)

Why? Easy...money. More money is made by making food stuffs as cheaply as possible and making the buying price for the public as high as possible. Gee..real shocker there right? :think: Money in pharmaceuticals and higher price gauging by medical insurance due to your high risk. :rolleyes:

Has anyone actually looked at what the medical insurance industry calls obese? What they consider morbidly obese? We are not talking the 550 pound 14 year old on the news this last week...we all understand that as morbidly obese. But 25 to 40 pounds over their standard chart weight for height? Hell, we'd all be near skin and bones to meet those antiquated guidelines. I"m 5'4..and weight approximately 115 to 120 in any given month...and I'm over weight by medical insurance standards! I have to fight to keep weight on due to my condition...but would be charged more due to my 'excessive' weight. Now how is that right?

I've heard many a family complain how expensive it is to 'eat right'. Eating healthy..meaning eating 'whole' or fresh foods is 4 times more expensive for the average American family then buying prepacked, frozen, pre prepared type boxed foods (stuffing, minute rice, pasta, pasta sauce, breads, you get the idea). Preparing whole or fresh foods is also more time consuming. So with price and time being a factor..most families choose the less desirable foods that are not as 'healthy' as they could be.

It seems to be that this whole debate becomes mute when we are diametrically opposed as consumers in what is available to the American public to buy as food...set standards so that healthy food is expensive and time consuming to prepare....and then beat us over the head for not 'eating more healthy'...and all the while, placing one of the most empty sugar filled fillers into almost every food stuff we buy! I mean dear flying frogs folks...it's insane!

~Mysty

[John2598]

*Warning...long post reply...my apologies in advance:...:redface: *

As it applies to breast cancer...your analogy is correct in that some unknown factor or even known factor must be present in order for that inactive genetic code to be 'turned on'. (birth control pills for instance..can turn on those gene's..and the person can be living a perfect healthy lifestyle...hmmmmm) As yet, medical science can take their best guess...yet are not 100% certain of exactly what or why causes certain genetic markers to be switched on promoting one disease, and why other genetic markers for other predisposed diseases seem to lay dormant no matter what the environment or health of the patient. We are not all cookie cutter replica's of one another..each body is unique. Medical science in many area's of health care is still very much 'best guess'.

Now, the exception here and were the public has been mislead is in the area of nutrition and excersise as being a factor in keeping certain predisposed genes from ever turning 'on'..which in this case is the gene that promotes that specific set of cancerous cells in the breast. Stress could be a factor..and usually is a factor in most of our modern day disease process. Stress reduces/lowers our immune system to a point of opening up our bodies to genetic predisposed illness/conditions that may be inlaid within our genetics..and opens our systems up more readily to viruses and or bacteria's. OTC use...yep..can and does turn on certain genetic markers for certain diseases. Use of purely holistic methods and treatments can turn on those markers...vitamins...drinking to much water...what have you can from unique person to unique person turn on unknowingly those markers. Scary stuff huh? Sometimes those markers turn on during a developmental stage within a person life..with no other harmful or unhealthy precursor in that person's environment noted. Now that's the truly scary stuff...as now a person has no control..which is what allot of health nuts truly fear..a loss of control.

So..lets, as an example, take a nasty virus; MRSA for instance. MRSA is not a natural occurring virus within our natural environment...it is/was created within the hospital/medical facility environment. No amount of healthy eating or lifestyle or excersise will keep one from contracting this virus when in a hospital settings with a lowered immune system that may be due to a active virus (ie bronchitis brought on by the cold virus, or influenza, or surgery, or open wound). Due to the modern treatment of these diseases/injuries, MRSA has been brought out of the hospital environment and let loosed upon the main populace through inadequate health care of these certain conditions; sending these patients home far to early with the active virus being treated in home vis a vie antivirals; that doesn't mean the virus itself is contained or non-spreadable to populace around said patient.

Contracting MRSA has nothing to do with genetics...just as contracting the common influenza or cold has nothing to do with genetics..and no amount of excersise, vitamins, healthy eating or other 'health promoting' ideologies will keep one from ever contracting said viruses. It is one of the main lies told to the populace in order to give a decreases in our health care demands. A bit of Darwinism is cleverly hidden within our medical mindset as it pertains to the medical insurance system...in that, if you die...it's less money out of their coffers. That's sad to say and admit..but very patently true.

Now take Parkinson's or Alzheimer or M.S....all disorders that affect the nervous system. No amount of healthy living guarantee's you that you won't contract these diseases; genetic predisposition or not. :shhh:The larger point here...we can keep ourselves as healthy as we wish..and it won't save us from contracting a genetic predisposed disease, virus or bacteria. That them there is the facts. What healthy living will/can garner us is less statistical numbers in what I term 'usury living' type disorders...like but not limited to sclerotic livers, non insulin dependent diabetes, joint and bone issues due to sever weight gain, back/spine disorders due to redundant activity, eating disorders, stress induced abscesses and stomach issues, migraines, abscess acne etc. Does that mean we can eradicate these disorders and diseases? No..it does not..it simply means we can try to reduce the amount of people who contract these diseases/conditions and the amount of money that is spent treating them. Really, I don't see those numbers changing in the least..no matter who is running the health care system, no matter what law that says what we can eat, drink or smoke. Our natural day to day environment is enough to bring about the conditions we see most in the medical field. :whistle:

I guess we could wrap everyone in bubble wrap...never allow cars or motorcycles, bus or train/airplane travel to operated by a human being...send out Nutrisystem type meals to every man, woman and child in the nation, have mandated weigh in's like Weight Watchers every week in every school and library across the nation, have a 5am mandated controlled excersise program for every person in this nation that is monitored by local government officials, and have the government tell us what type of work/job is the least stressful for our specific body type and genetics so we have limited need of any medical care. And guess what..even that wouldn't work..we would still get sick, cold's, flu's, viruses and bacterial infections..and yes...we would still have death....we would still have pain and suffering. Gee...not much a healthy lifestyle and excersise can really save us from is there? Can it improve certain people quality of life? Sure...it can. Can it elevate everyone's quality of health? No..no in some instances it would actually harm certain individuals. Go figure huh? :neutral:



GreyClouds gave an excellent response to this part of your post. I'll add to his response that those 'large population studies' you mention as a bell weather for our supposed medical needs in our nation are done for one purpose and one purpose only. MONEY. Yep...you read right..money. Grant money, proposal money, scholarship money...government money, corporation money, private money...you get the idea. Did you really think these types of studies were done to improve our health as a nation? Sweet to think so..but far from reality.

And....There is no one 'doomed' to confusion here. :rolleyes: Despite what the government would have you think..American's are more then aware of what is and is not 'good' for them. What works for one does not necessarily work for another..as you pointed out. So how can one standard be applied to 'all'? Answer is..they know they can't apply one standard for 'all'. Where the confusion is in this topic is within the 'hiding' of reality of how the insurance industry really works; the high profits they have been made upon fear mongering and made up science to promote health care programs for people to participate in; which gee..put up more consumer money into the health care market.

I know not one person who thinks..well gee..no one knows what is best for me so I'll do nothing stance. :eh: There are people...called doctors...who do know enough to keep a human being pain free..or close to pain free..treat the human conditions presented to their best end for the knowledge we have...and build on the knowledge of generations of doctors and medical professionals before them to ensure the further education and understanding of our bodies and the diseases we are faced with. People also have the ability to make up their own minds. Research out and find answers to their questions. We are not a dependent society waiting for some government official to tell us what is best for us. We have far to many conflicting agencies in and out of government making a mess of the 'what is best for you' mantra.

We have become and are for the most part, a nation of well educated people...independent thinking people. The only standard of confusion on our populaces part is how our medical care got so expensive...and so varied in how to treat the human body; and why the government is now so keen on taking over said system.

Fasten your seat belts kids...this is gonna be on bumpy ride. :shhh:

~Mysty

It seems that you might have taken offense at my reply to your post. If so, I sincerely apologize. It wasn't my intention to offend you. I sincerely worried about causing confusion for the average person and you responded with more layers of confusion.

But I do have one question before I depart: If you don't believe studies because they're done for "MONEY", where do you get your information?

P.S. When I started this thread it wasn't about government health care. Was it? No, it was about some statements that Rush made that I thought were misleading. That's it.

[ValricoKate]

Just stop and think for a minute: Does this sound true or false?

He said this on the radio today: Liberal Democrats promised that health care costs would go down if people would stop smoking. Well, he claims they lied because today there are only about half as many people smoking and health care costs have not gone down. He didn't mention any scientific study; it's just something he came up with. And he wants us to think this way about ALL lifestyle choices: Lifestyle choices don't have anything to do with health care costs.


Did Rush knowingly misleading his audience? Did he conveniently forget to take into account the fact that as the number of smokers slowly declined the rates of obesity and diabetes slowly increased?

What do you think? Did liberal Democrats lie or did Rush lie?

I don't think anybody lied.
I think they chose to look at the data the way they wanted.

Unhealthy lifestyle choices [drug misuse, sexual deviations from the norm, even too loud rock&roll] will lead to higher costs.

Where is that study?

ETA: here it is
http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102233459.html
CONCLUSIONS: Risky lifestyle behaviors contriubte to increased costs, both lifestyle-related and non-lifestyle-related. Reducing these behaviors through employee education or health promotion programs will ultimately reduce costs.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE AND POLICY: These findings suggest that employers should study the costs related to risky behaviors within their employee populations and tailor health promotion programs to those lifestyle behaviors that will have the greatest impact on health care and other employee productivity costs.

[dbs944]

If a person stops smoking (or better yet, doesn't start) I bet he'd have lower health care costs than a person with similar medical issues who smokes. Pretty obvious there.
I'd probably take you on on that bet. I think over the life of the patient, smokers actually cost less than non-smokers. My father for example, bam, heart attack at 50, very little medical costs. If he didn't smoke, he'd have a bypass, artificial hip, dentures, hearing aid, perhaps living in assisted living housing etc. I'm also wondering if obesity could see the same thing. While they are living there are probably higher costs but since they die so early, all the expensive end-of-life expenses are not neede.

IOW - a healty lifestyle is in the long run going to cost a lot more.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

It seems that you might have taken offense at my reply to your post. If so, I sincerely apologize. It wasn't my intention to offend you. I sincerely worried about causing confusion for the average person and you responded with more layers of confusion.

No offense taken....none at all. :) I didn't mean for my reply post to sound accusative or a tone of response as though you had offended me. I do have a set of educated opinions that are based upon my degree field of study within the medical field and my own personal experiences within the medical field as a patient. Given my background, and by my response, you can deduce safely that this topic is important to me..and sharing information is key in understanding the entire picture of our 'health care system'. Meaning..don't believe everything you hear on MSM's about health..or even studies themselves. They can be informative...or they can be misleading. :think:

But I do have one question before I depart: If you don't believe studies because they're done for "MONEY", where do you get your information?

P.S. When I started this thread it wasn't about government health care. Was it? No, it was about some statements that Rush made that I thought were misleading. That's it.



This whole confusion statement you keep making. What is confusing? The entire medical field as it relates to a lay person's understanding of their conditions/ailments? I've heard that complaint many a time from my own patients. Medicine today is not an easily understandable field..not in the least. Not all doctors prescribe to the same 'school' of practice. Not all doctors treat their patients with the same remedies and or medication/treatments. Patients must be 'pro-active' within their own health care. Asking questions of your doctors and health providers is a start. Asking constantly 'why'?. Researching out information on your own...which there is plenty of resources to do so...to gain a better understanding of a condition or ailment is another good start. Challenging base information you hear or read about and applying what you know of your own lifestyle and environment is also another good start. You begin to build upon information that is then usury within your own day to day life. ;)

Studies...I didn't say I didn't believe in these studies....:eh: I said any health study really..should be challenged...vetted if you will. Like any study within any given field, the full broad picture must be looked at..the "why's" of the stated need for the specific study?...who is behind the study?...what is the benefit of the study?..is the study to promote a specific product or reform? ..All of that must be looked at so that one understands what the agenda is within the study...especially within the medical field. (Rarely is a study simply done for no purpose...usually studies are conducted to promote monies for research or promote a grant for pharmaceutical research or monies for a proven 'need' in building a new health care facility or clinic.) That doesn't mean all study's are to be discarded...there is true information to be gained from these studies that can be applied broader brush for possible'preventative' wellness programs within a population. I would not however, put 100% stock into any one study on any one subject without knowing the 'why's' and then apply it blindly broad brush to the greater populace of our nation. That doesn't work...and it can cause more harm then any good intended by those who promoted the study. Which translates into dollars..bottom line.

Now, about those dollars....and yes,...your correct; You didn't mention health insurance industries or pharmaceutical companies within the base OP topic. I brought them up to show the full scope of the subject/topic you did raise. Whether we like it or not, this topic will always wind up with the same bottom line...insurance and pharmaceuticals. :shhh: ie...money.

~Mysty

[Voxpopuli]

Maybe they havn't gone down because obesity has increased for decades now.

I suspect you are on to something. It sounds much more reasonable than "health care rose because people quit smoking" or whatever misleading idea Rush meant to imply.

[CID_0687]

It only takes one person as an "incubator" for a new breed of resistant virulent pathogens:

http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19080

http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0950-2688(199308)111%3A1%3C55%3AOONIWT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1

http://www.citeulike.org/user/gwenknight/article/4882627


I am not doubting that you are a responsible user of medications; however, are you SURE that you want to vouch for EVERYONE? Like I said, it only takes one stupid person to inadvertently brew up an outbreak.
If done correctly it could work. Show your ID, your name goes into a database...you buy a 30 day supply of a medication at Walgreen's you can't go to Rite Aid and buy it again until that supply has run out.

With things like antibiotics, if after the 5 day regiment has run out they could have, like many pharmacies already do, a Nurse Practitioner there to evaluate you.

It's doable.

[John2598]

No offense taken....none at all. :) I didn't mean for my reply post to sound accusative or a tone of response as though you had offended me. I do have a set of educated opinions that are based upon my degree field of study within the medical field and my own personal experiences within the medical field as a patient. Given my background, and by my response, you can deduce safely that this topic is important to me..and sharing information is key in understanding the entire picture of our 'health care system'. Meaning..don't believe everything you hear on MSM's about health..or even studies themselves. They can be informative...or they can be misleading. :think:





This whole confusion statement you keep making. What is confusing? The entire medical field as it relates to a lay person's understanding of their conditions/ailments? I've heard that complaint many a time from my own patients. Medicine today is not an easily understandable field..not in the least. Not all doctors prescribe to the same 'school' of practice. Not all doctors treat their patients with the same remedies and or medication/treatments. Patients must be 'pro-active' within their own health care. Asking questions of your doctors and health providers is a start. Asking constantly 'why'?. Researching out information on your own...which there is plenty of resources to do so...to gain a better understanding of a condition or ailment is another good start. Challenging base information you hear or read about and applying what you know of your own lifestyle and environment is also another good start. You begin to build upon information that is then usury within your own day to day life. ;)

Studies...I didn't say I didn't believe in these studies....:eh: I said any health study really..should be challenged...vetted if you will. Like any study within any given field, the full broad picture must be looked at..the "why's" of the stated need for the specific study?...who is behind the study?...what is the benefit of the study?..is the study to promote a specific product or reform? ..All of that must be looked at so that one understands what the agenda is within the study...especially within the medical field. (Rarely is a study simply done for no purpose...usually studies are conducted to promote monies for research or promote a grant for pharmaceutical research or monies for a proven 'need' in building a new health care facility or clinic.) That doesn't mean all study's are to be discarded...there is true information to be gained from these studies that can be applied broader brush for possible'preventative' wellness programs within a population. I would not however, put 100% stock into any one study on any one subject without knowing the 'why's' and then apply it blindly broad brush to the greater populace of our nation. That doesn't work...and it can cause more harm then any good intended by those who promoted the study. Which translates into dollars..bottom line.

Now, about those dollars....and yes,...your correct; You didn't mention health insurance industries or pharmaceutical companies within the base OP topic. I brought them up to show the full scope of the subject/topic you did raise. Whether we like it or not, this topic will always wind up with the same bottom line...insurance and pharmaceuticals. :shhh: ie...money.

~Mysty

Thanks! I enjoyed it. :hug:

Yesterday I tried to reply twice and both times I lost the message due to computer problems. So I'll keep this short:

I don't see that we have very much to disagree about. We're both interested in health and wellness and we don't want to see too much government interference.

If you ever get a chance to read "The China Study" I would greatly appreciate your opinion of it.

Thanks!

[Greyclouds]

If done correctly it could work. Show your ID, your name goes into a database...you buy a 30 day supply of a medication at Walgreen's you can't go to Rite Aid and buy it again until that supply has run out.

With things like antibiotics, if after the 5 day regiment has run out they could have, like many pharmacies already do, a Nurse Practitioner there to evaluate you.

It's doable.

5 days would be FAR too short of a time for a refill of oral antibiotic courses!

Make it 6 months, and we'll call it a draw.


Also, make it so that the system can refuse OTC antibiotics to people who do not finish their regiments (a significant number of people do not take all antibiotics in their dose packs; this is dangerous!).

You'd be very hesitant to release such a guideline to the public if you read about some of the index cases for MRSA and how they used antibiotics prior to their infection!

[CID_0687]

5 days would be FAR too short of a time for a refill of oral antibiotic courses!

Make it 6 months, and we'll call it a draw.


Also, make it so that the system can refuse OTC antibiotics to people who do not finish their regiments (a significant number of people do not take all antibiotics in their dose packs; this is dangerous!).

You'd be very hesitant to release such a guideline to the public if you read about some of the index cases for MRSA and how they used antibiotics prior to their infection!
I've had several times where I've gone to the Dr. for an illness, he's prescribed me an antibiotic and said if my condition hasn't improved in 5 or 7 days come back...and I've had to...He's then prescribed either an another antibiotic or the same at a higher dosage. That's why the need for the nurse practitioner on the pharmacy staff.