Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (18729)	8/10/2010 5:17:18 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

In many instances, "make things tolerable" is the objective because nothing more can be done. You're right that in many instances, making things tolerable becomes the objective. But that's a fall-back objective. The goal was solving the problem, but that was unfeasible so we're relegated to making things tolerable. Making things tolerable does not solve the problem. It may be all that can be don and it's no knock on physicians when a problem in insoluble. It's great that we have physicians to identify the situation as one where we can't solve the problem but only mitigate the impact or prepare us for the worst. But you can't claim that that solves the problem.

To: i-node who wrote (18729)	8/11/2010 1:14:48 AM
From: dybdahl	Respond to of 42652

I don't misunderstand the role of the physician, I am just highlighting the fact, that the physician doesn't solve a lot - but instead provides relievers and symptom treatment. So, if the physician does not solve your health problem, who does? The basic problem is, when this process is applied: Problem => Indication/Diagnose => Treatment This process is unsuitable for most health problems and seriously, doesn't require 5 years of studies for most problems. Instead, the process should include evaluation, iterations and constant redesign of the process, and these redesigns must include something else than having the patient visit the doctor. For instance, I know a person who got Multiple Chemical Sensitivity only because the doctor didn't make a visit to that person's office but provided her with the feeling that her health is now under investigation by the doctor, who is competent. If she had known the limits of the doctor's processes, or if the doctor had investigated the matter properly by making a visit to her workplace, she would now be able to go to the theater without a breathing mask. But, with your words, she didn't understand the role of the physician. Many don't do that, so that is why the system needs a change, and this applies to all the health (care) systems that I know.