On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 10:43:00 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 20:02:12 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>On 3/31/2022 6:54 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:15:44 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/30/2022 8:46 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 20:21:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 6:01 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 07:33:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 3:05 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 23:37:56 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 7:57:00 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:22:58 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:51:18 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:40:22 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of those rare occasions where I have to partially side with Tom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you need a neurologist you need a good one, and my experiences had me shopping a bit to find one that was a good fit. The first one was totally useless - perhaps he would have been good if my symptoms had been different but for me he was the wrong one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, lining one up ahead of time seems unlikely to work. You don't know what your problem is going to be, and as has been pointed out bicycle injuries are not the majority of reasons to see one; add to that by the time you need one the local guy will have retired or been bought out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The strategy I recommend is first trust your primary care to recommend someone, then if you have the slightest doubt demand a second opinion. That's what I did and it worked out well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well you're correct that some neurologists are not good. They mostly treat various forms of dementia and entirely forget treating concussion. But knowing where a couple of neurologists are is important if you need a good one. I was initially sent to a very bad one by my MD and he didn't know anything. And then my MD refused to look any further. Thanks to my friend he got me to a good one at Stanford (I suppose having football team members there doesn't hurt).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I showed how many head injuries there are each year and while fewer of those are concussions than football causes that is STILL a considerable number of serious concussions. Apparently the "group of 5" don't believe in being prepared.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us Tommy boy, have you researched and lined up a doctor for the following much more likely physical problems:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Orthopedist for osteoporosis.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Rheumatologist for arthritis.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Cardiologist for heart attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Proctologist for hemorrhoids.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Podiatrist for foot problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 6. Ophthalmologist for eye problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 7. Nephrologist for your kidney disease.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 8. Hematologist for blood clots.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 9. Otolaryngologist for hearing loss.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10. And last but certainly not least, actually this is the most important doctor of all for you Tommy to research and find a really good one, a PSYCHIATRIST for all of Tommy boy's mental irregularities. And Tommy, add in a Psychologist too. They are not medical doctors, but your problems are far more mental than physical, so a Psychologist will be able to help you a lot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tommy, if you have not researched and found a good doctor for all of these likely issues, then you are just lying and yipping and yapping about your neurologist. These are more likely to occur and much higher up on the list of doctors for you to research. Get to it Tommy boy. Report back when you have every one of these doctors on your speed dial.
>>>>>>>>>>> But, how does one select a "good" doctor? Do doctors publish their
>>>>>>>>>>> grades in Medical school? Do doctors publish win/loss scores for
>>>>>>>>>>> patients cured/died? How does one pick a "good" doctor?
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I don't think you know they are "good" until after you see them for awhile. And I suppose you judge how "good" they were by whether you got better. In my lifetime of doctor seeing, I have been fortunate enough to have had some really "good" doctors. And would recommend them to others if I was asked. But it took a number of years for me to decide they were "good".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But what is good, or what is better? If, for example. you have high
>>>>>>>>> cholesterol, one doctor might recommend that you take LIVALO for your
>>>>>>>>> problem, but another doctor might recommend lower doses of LIVALO but
>>>>>>>>> also strongly recommend that you change your diet, lose weight and
>>>>>>>>> start to exercise.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is the better doctor?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And which is the doctor that most will recommend to their friends?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's a complex question. The brother of a good friend is
>>>>>>>> a suburban GP who says that mothers bring children in with
>>>>>>>> viruses and demand antibiotics. His choice is either to do
>>>>>>>> the right thing and say no, resulting in a reputation as a
>>>>>>>> 'bad doctor' or to prescribe a very low dose of antibiotics
>>>>>>>> with the understanding that most childhood viruses will
>>>>>>>> clear them selves in a few days with rest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you can double that problem for doctors asked to
>>>>>>>> prescribe morphine and similar. The patient knows that
>>>>>>>> someone else (insurance company or welfare) will pick up
>>>>>>>> most of the office visit and prescription charges, leaving
>>>>>>>> the patient with a saleable item.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Add in that few MDs are independent professionals now.
>>>>>>>> They're employees of large entities and capitated, which
>>>>>>>> means time spent with a patient is strongly discouraged.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How to approach that problem? Systematize pill pushing!
>>>>>>>> https://www.bloombergquint.com/businessweek/cerebral-app-over-prescribed-adhd-meds-ex-employees-say
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Define 'good doctor' any way you like but the degradation of
>>>>>>>> the medical industry (from the patient's view, not the
>>>>>>>> revenue side of the industry) continues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure that I agree with you. I have a pacemaker, which keeps my
>>>>>>> heart beating regularly. Not that many years ago there weren't any
>>>>>>> such devices and I'd likely be dead today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hardly degradation (:-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wrote 'degradation' not 'disappearance'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pacemakers have been around for some 70 years or so (with
>>>>>> regular improvement I might add) which makes them hardly an
>>>>>> exemplar of the current problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> 62 years actually. the first pacemaker was implanted in a human, in
>>>>> 1960, in a 77-year-old man, who lived for 10 months after the surgery.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, I'm still not sure about "degradation" as that implies that
>>>>> medical care is less, or less well done, today then it was in the
>>>>> past, while I'm seeing things done today that would have been
>>>>> considered impossible a generation ago.
>>>>> https://thethaiger.com/news/national/siriraj-hospital-announces-thailands-first-successful-multi-visceral-transplant
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My first comments on this subject above were, "It's complex".
>>>>
>>>> Yes, innovation continues apace, as you note. Which is good.
>>>>
>>>> Systemic difficulties continue as well:
>>>> https://newsmantraa.us/healthcare-acquired-infection-market-research-report-size-share-price-trends-and-forecast-to-2025/
>>>>
>>>> I touched on a few other negative trends earlier. A mixed
>>>> bag at best, at great cost both in suffering and in dollars.
>>>
>>> Well, I did read your reference, above, but essentially it seemed to
>>> say that the acquired infection market is growing as certainly one
>>> would assume that it must given the population growth, i.e. more
>>> people, more possible infections.
>>>
>>> Example, the "black death" is estimated to have killed some 25
>>> million people in Europe, estimated to have been between 30% and 60%
>>> of the population. Today, a disease that killed 30 - 60 percent of the
>>> European population would kill 225 to 450 million.
>>>
>>> Added to that is the U.S. capitalistic system of charging all the
>>> market will stand and I'm sure that the cost of sickness, in the U.S.
>>> is skyrocketing.
>>>
>>> Here the government buys medicines on the open market with competitive
>>> bidding and, I'm guessing here, my monthly medicine costs are far
>>> lower, maybe 1/4, or less, that which you would pay in the U.S.
>>> Goodness! You can just go to Canada or Mexico and get lower medicine
>>> costs.
>>>
>>
>>Without engaging that discussion here, much is made of
>>roughly 20,000 USA firearms homicides per year but nobody
>>much cares about 70,000 people who are admitted to a
>>hospital and, while there, contract infection and die as a
>>result. That's a large number of people.
>>
>I think that your figures may be outdated. See
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1820440/
>The estimated deaths associated with HAIs in U.S. hospitals were
>98,987
>
>>Fatal medical errors altogether are a humongous number and
>>extremely complex but iatric infection alone for 70,000 dead
>>people? really?
>>
>>Oh by the way as we saw with the Wuhan Bioweapon, death
>>report numbers are massaged, so if the medical racket admits
>>70,000 it's at least that many, no less.
>>
>>Taking nothing from the deserved praise of medical
>>researchers (one of my brothers among them) and inventors,
>>and always with a tip of the hat to the saintly RNs, the
>>system has system deficiencies. These are management and
>>incentive failures and they're not getting better.
>
>
>Out of curiosity I have tried to research why the U.S. is rated so low
>in medical care and while it is certainly rated far below other
>countries, the quoted "reason" I see is that it is tremendously
>expensive, and, perhaps as a result USians don't go to the doctor as
>frequently.
>
>The other reason I see listed for poor medical care is that the U.S.'s
>medical system is ceremoniously inefficient with reasons ranging from
>that no insurance plan has sufficient participants to be really
>effective in negations with the Medical Industry to doctors making
>more money from treating patients then curing patients.

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 8:00:22 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/31/2022 2:30 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 11:42:51 AM UTC-4, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:49:44 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>> Moral Hazard is a well-known factor in the insurance industry.
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard#Insurance_industry
> >>> "Two types of behavior can change. One type is the risky behavior itself, resulting in a before the event moral hazard. Insured parties then behave in a more risky manner, resulting in more negative consequences that the insurer must pay for. "
> >>>
> >> Something I've wondered about. Most industrialized countries outside the US have some version of universal health care.
> >> Are young males more likely to do violent acts (like soccer hoolaganism, etc.) knowing that medical care will be available and free?
> >> Or are kids that age not really capable of making that kind of association anyway?
> >
> > I don't believe children take such risks with the understanding they will be taken care of, but as they grow older and see a lack of a downside towards their actions they are likely to take more risks. A friend of mine has a son who started get into downhill racing when he was a teen. His parents indulged only on the condition that he wouldn't try riding extreme terrain without them around. The predictable happened, he went out to the local abandoned quarry after school with his friends in his new full body armor. Fortunately the result was only a broken collarbone and a few cracked ribs. He admitted he took a risk on a big drop because he thought the suit would protect him.
> A detail: As I understand it, "moral hazard" differs a bit from "risk
> compensation" (or "risk homeostasis") in that in a "moral hazard"
> situation, the risk is borne by another - say, the insurance company. In
> "risk compensation" the risk is borne by the participant.

Insurance companies make no distinction from the perspective of the payout. As noted in my post, one type of behaviour is "before the event" moral hazard. Insured parties behave in a more risky manner under the assumption that there is insurance for the consequences. This is regardless of whether the risky behaviour results in personal damage or injury to the insured party or someone else (as in the Fried Green Tomatoes example).

Another type is "after the event" moral hazard where the reaction to the negative consequences of risk once they have occurred is that the insurance company is asked to increase the scope of coverage related to risky behaviour. Insured parties then do not behave in a more risky manner that results in more negative consequences, but they ask an insurer to pay for more of the negative consequences from risk as insurance coverage increases.

(the above was paraphrased and copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard#Insurance_industry)

The end result is the same - the insurance company pays out. The only difference is whether the insured knowingly engaged in the risky behaviour or not.

On 3/31/2022 10:31 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 8:02:18 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/31/2022 6:54 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:15:44 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/30/2022 8:46 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 20:21:56 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 6:01 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 07:33:01 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 3:05 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 23:37:56 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 7:57:00 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:22:58 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:51:18 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:40:22 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of those rare occasions where I have to partially side with Tom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you need a neurologist you need a good one, and my experiences had me shopping a bit to find one that was a good fit. The first one was totally useless - perhaps he would have been good if my symptoms had been different but for me he was the wrong one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, lining one up ahead of time seems unlikely to work. You don't know what your problem is going to be, and as has been pointed out bicycle injuries are not the majority of reasons to see one; add to that by the time you need one the local guy will have retired or been bought out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The strategy I recommend is first trust your primary care to recommend someone, then if you have the slightest doubt demand a second opinion. That's what I did and it worked out well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well you're correct that some neurologists are not good. They mostly treat various forms of dementia and entirely forget treating concussion. But knowing where a couple of neurologists are is important if you need a good one. I was initially sent to a very bad one by my MD and he didn't know anything. And then my MD refused to look any further. Thanks to my friend he got me to a good one at Stanford (I suppose having football team members there doesn't hurt).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I showed how many head injuries there are each year and while fewer of those are concussions than football causes that is STILL a considerable number of serious concussions. Apparently the "group of 5" don't believe in being prepared.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us Tommy boy, have you researched and lined up a doctor for the following much more likely physical problems:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Orthopedist for osteoporosis.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Rheumatologist for arthritis.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Cardiologist for heart attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Proctologist for hemorrhoids.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Podiatrist for foot problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 6. Ophthalmologist for eye problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 7. Nephrologist for your kidney disease.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 8. Hematologist for blood clots.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 9. Otolaryngologist for hearing loss.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10. And last but certainly not least, actually this is the most important doctor of all for you Tommy to research and find a really good one, a PSYCHIATRIST for all of Tommy boy's mental irregularities. And Tommy, add in a Psychologist too. They are not medical doctors, but your problems are far more mental than physical, so a Psychologist will be able to help you a lot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tommy, if you have not researched and found a good doctor for all of these likely issues, then you are just lying and yipping and yapping about your neurologist. These are more likely to occur and much higher up on the list of doctors for you to research. Get to it Tommy boy. Report back when you have every one of these doctors on your speed dial.
>>>>>>>>>>> But, how does one select a "good" doctor? Do doctors publish their
>>>>>>>>>>> grades in Medical school? Do doctors publish win/loss scores for
>>>>>>>>>>> patients cured/died? How does one pick a "good" doctor?
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I don't think you know they are "good" until after you see them for awhile. And I suppose you judge how "good" they were by whether you got better. In my lifetime of doctor seeing, I have been fortunate enough to have had some really "good" doctors. And would recommend them to others if I was asked. But it took a number of years for me to decide they were "good".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But what is good, or what is better? If, for example. you have high
>>>>>>>>> cholesterol, one doctor might recommend that you take LIVALO for your
>>>>>>>>> problem, but another doctor might recommend lower doses of LIVALO but
>>>>>>>>> also strongly recommend that you change your diet, lose weight and
>>>>>>>>> start to exercise.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is the better doctor?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And which is the doctor that most will recommend to their friends?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's a complex question. The brother of a good friend is
>>>>>>>> a suburban GP who says that mothers bring children in with
>>>>>>>> viruses and demand antibiotics. His choice is either to do
>>>>>>>> the right thing and say no, resulting in a reputation as a
>>>>>>>> 'bad doctor' or to prescribe a very low dose of antibiotics
>>>>>>>> with the understanding that most childhood viruses will
>>>>>>>> clear them selves in a few days with rest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you can double that problem for doctors asked to
>>>>>>>> prescribe morphine and similar. The patient knows that
>>>>>>>> someone else (insurance company or welfare) will pick up
>>>>>>>> most of the office visit and prescription charges, leaving
>>>>>>>> the patient with a saleable item.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Add in that few MDs are independent professionals now.
>>>>>>>> They're employees of large entities and capitated, which
>>>>>>>> means time spent with a patient is strongly discouraged.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How to approach that problem? Systematize pill pushing!
>>>>>>>> https://www.bloombergquint.com/businessweek/cerebral-app-over-prescribed-adhd-meds-ex-employees-say
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Define 'good doctor' any way you like but the degradation of
>>>>>>>> the medical industry (from the patient's view, not the
>>>>>>>> revenue side of the industry) continues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure that I agree with you. I have a pacemaker, which keeps my
>>>>>>> heart beating regularly. Not that many years ago there weren't any
>>>>>>> such devices and I'd likely be dead today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hardly degradation (:-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wrote 'degradation' not 'disappearance'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pacemakers have been around for some 70 years or so (with
>>>>>> regular improvement I might add) which makes them hardly an
>>>>>> exemplar of the current problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> 62 years actually. the first pacemaker was implanted in a human, in
>>>>> 1960, in a 77-year-old man, who lived for 10 months after the surgery.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, I'm still not sure about "degradation" as that implies that
>>>>> medical care is less, or less well done, today then it was in the
>>>>> past, while I'm seeing things done today that would have been
>>>>> considered impossible a generation ago.
>>>>> https://thethaiger.com/news/national/siriraj-hospital-announces-thailands-first-successful-multi-visceral-transplant
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My first comments on this subject above were, "It's complex".
>>>>
>>>> Yes, innovation continues apace, as you note. Which is good.
>>>>
>>>> Systemic difficulties continue as well:
>>>> https://newsmantraa.us/healthcare-acquired-infection-market-research-report-size-share-price-trends-and-forecast-to-2025/
>>>>
>>>> I touched on a few other negative trends earlier. A mixed
>>>> bag at best, at great cost both in suffering and in dollars.
>>>
>>> Well, I did read your reference, above, but essentially it seemed to
>>> say that the acquired infection market is growing as certainly one
>>> would assume that it must given the population growth, i.e. more
>>> people, more possible infections.
>>>
>>> Example, the "black death" is estimated to have killed some 25
>>> million people in Europe, estimated to have been between 30% and 60%
>>> of the population. Today, a disease that killed 30 - 60 percent of the
>>> European population would kill 225 to 450 million.
>>>
>>> Added to that is the U.S. capitalistic system of charging all the
>>> market will stand and I'm sure that the cost of sickness, in the U.S.
>>> is skyrocketing.
>>>
>>> Here the government buys medicines on the open market with competitive
>>> bidding and, I'm guessing here, my monthly medicine costs are far
>>> lower, maybe 1/4, or less, that which you would pay in the U.S.
>>> Goodness! You can just go to Canada or Mexico and get lower medicine
>>> costs.
>>>
>> Without engaging that discussion here, much is made of
>> roughly 20,000 USA firearms homicides per year but nobody
>> much cares about 70,000 people who are admitted to a
>> hospital and, while there, contract infection and die as a
>> result. That's a large number of people.
>
> Probably, certainly, has a lot to do with intent. With the 20k firearm murders, the person with the gun intended and tried to murder the victim. But with the 70k hospital infections, no one at the hospital intentionally and purposely got the victim sick. No doctor or nurse injected some poison or virus or bacteria into the victim. A very similar thing happens with suicides. In 2020, suicide gun deaths were about 24k. Gun murders in 2020 were about 19k. But the gun murders get lots more publicity and concern because they were done by outside forces. Whereas suicides are done to oneself. Suicides are bad. But you do it to yourself. So...
>
> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
>
>
>
>>
>> Fatal medical errors altogether are a humongous number and
>> extremely complex but iatric infection alone for 70,000 dead
>> people? really?
>>
>> Oh by the way as we saw with the Wuhan Bioweapon, death
>> report numbers are massaged, so if the medical racket admits
>> 70,000 it's at least that many, no less.
>>
>> Taking nothing from the deserved praise of medical
>> researchers (one of my brothers among them) and inventors,
>> and always with a tip of the hat to the saintly RNs, the
>> system has system deficiencies. These are management and
>> incentive failures and they're not getting better.

On 3/31/2022 10:43 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 20:02:12 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/31/2022 6:54 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:15:44 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/30/2022 8:46 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 20:21:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 6:01 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 07:33:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 3:05 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 23:37:56 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 7:57:00 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:22:58 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:51:18 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:40:22 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of those rare occasions where I have to partially side with Tom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you need a neurologist you need a good one, and my experiences had me shopping a bit to find one that was a good fit. The first one was totally useless - perhaps he would have been good if my symptoms had been different but for me he was the wrong one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, lining one up ahead of time seems unlikely to work. You don't know what your problem is going to be, and as has been pointed out bicycle injuries are not the majority of reasons to see one; add to that by the time you need one the local guy will have retired or been bought out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The strategy I recommend is first trust your primary care to recommend someone, then if you have the slightest doubt demand a second opinion. That's what I did and it worked out well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well you're correct that some neurologists are not good. They mostly treat various forms of dementia and entirely forget treating concussion. But knowing where a couple of neurologists are is important if you need a good one. I was initially sent to a very bad one by my MD and he didn't know anything. And then my MD refused to look any further. Thanks to my friend he got me to a good one at Stanford (I suppose having football team members there doesn't hurt).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I showed how many head injuries there are each year and while fewer of those are concussions than football causes that is STILL a considerable number of serious concussions. Apparently the "group of 5" don't believe in being prepared.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us Tommy boy, have you researched and lined up a doctor for the following much more likely physical problems:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Orthopedist for osteoporosis.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Rheumatologist for arthritis.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Cardiologist for heart attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Proctologist for hemorrhoids.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Podiatrist for foot problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 6. Ophthalmologist for eye problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 7. Nephrologist for your kidney disease.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 8. Hematologist for blood clots.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 9. Otolaryngologist for hearing loss.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10. And last but certainly not least, actually this is the most important doctor of all for you Tommy to research and find a really good one, a PSYCHIATRIST for all of Tommy boy's mental irregularities. And Tommy, add in a Psychologist too. They are not medical doctors, but your problems are far more mental than physical, so a Psychologist will be able to help you a lot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tommy, if you have not researched and found a good doctor for all of these likely issues, then you are just lying and yipping and yapping about your neurologist. These are more likely to occur and much higher up on the list of doctors for you to research. Get to it Tommy boy. Report back when you have every one of these doctors on your speed dial.
>>>>>>>>>>> But, how does one select a "good" doctor? Do doctors publish their
>>>>>>>>>>> grades in Medical school? Do doctors publish win/loss scores for
>>>>>>>>>>> patients cured/died? How does one pick a "good" doctor?
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I don't think you know they are "good" until after you see them for awhile. And I suppose you judge how "good" they were by whether you got better. In my lifetime of doctor seeing, I have been fortunate enough to have had some really "good" doctors. And would recommend them to others if I was asked. But it took a number of years for me to decide they were "good".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But what is good, or what is better? If, for example. you have high
>>>>>>>>> cholesterol, one doctor might recommend that you take LIVALO for your
>>>>>>>>> problem, but another doctor might recommend lower doses of LIVALO but
>>>>>>>>> also strongly recommend that you change your diet, lose weight and
>>>>>>>>> start to exercise.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is the better doctor?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And which is the doctor that most will recommend to their friends?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's a complex question. The brother of a good friend is
>>>>>>>> a suburban GP who says that mothers bring children in with
>>>>>>>> viruses and demand antibiotics. His choice is either to do
>>>>>>>> the right thing and say no, resulting in a reputation as a
>>>>>>>> 'bad doctor' or to prescribe a very low dose of antibiotics
>>>>>>>> with the understanding that most childhood viruses will
>>>>>>>> clear them selves in a few days with rest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you can double that problem for doctors asked to
>>>>>>>> prescribe morphine and similar. The patient knows that
>>>>>>>> someone else (insurance company or welfare) will pick up
>>>>>>>> most of the office visit and prescription charges, leaving
>>>>>>>> the patient with a saleable item.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Add in that few MDs are independent professionals now.
>>>>>>>> They're employees of large entities and capitated, which
>>>>>>>> means time spent with a patient is strongly discouraged.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How to approach that problem? Systematize pill pushing!
>>>>>>>> https://www.bloombergquint.com/businessweek/cerebral-app-over-prescribed-adhd-meds-ex-employees-say
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Define 'good doctor' any way you like but the degradation of
>>>>>>>> the medical industry (from the patient's view, not the
>>>>>>>> revenue side of the industry) continues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure that I agree with you. I have a pacemaker, which keeps my
>>>>>>> heart beating regularly. Not that many years ago there weren't any
>>>>>>> such devices and I'd likely be dead today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hardly degradation (:-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wrote 'degradation' not 'disappearance'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pacemakers have been around for some 70 years or so (with
>>>>>> regular improvement I might add) which makes them hardly an
>>>>>> exemplar of the current problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> 62 years actually. the first pacemaker was implanted in a human, in
>>>>> 1960, in a 77-year-old man, who lived for 10 months after the surgery.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, I'm still not sure about "degradation" as that implies that
>>>>> medical care is less, or less well done, today then it was in the
>>>>> past, while I'm seeing things done today that would have been
>>>>> considered impossible a generation ago.
>>>>> https://thethaiger.com/news/national/siriraj-hospital-announces-thailands-first-successful-multi-visceral-transplant
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My first comments on this subject above were, "It's complex".
>>>>
>>>> Yes, innovation continues apace, as you note. Which is good.
>>>>
>>>> Systemic difficulties continue as well:
>>>> https://newsmantraa.us/healthcare-acquired-infection-market-research-report-size-share-price-trends-and-forecast-to-2025/
>>>>
>>>> I touched on a few other negative trends earlier. A mixed
>>>> bag at best, at great cost both in suffering and in dollars.
>>>
>>> Well, I did read your reference, above, but essentially it seemed to
>>> say that the acquired infection market is growing as certainly one
>>> would assume that it must given the population growth, i.e. more
>>> people, more possible infections.
>>>
>>> Example, the "black death" is estimated to have killed some 25
>>> million people in Europe, estimated to have been between 30% and 60%
>>> of the population. Today, a disease that killed 30 - 60 percent of the
>>> European population would kill 225 to 450 million.
>>>
>>> Added to that is the U.S. capitalistic system of charging all the
>>> market will stand and I'm sure that the cost of sickness, in the U.S.
>>> is skyrocketing.
>>>
>>> Here the government buys medicines on the open market with competitive
>>> bidding and, I'm guessing here, my monthly medicine costs are far
>>> lower, maybe 1/4, or less, that which you would pay in the U.S.
>>> Goodness! You can just go to Canada or Mexico and get lower medicine
>>> costs.
>>>
>>
>> Without engaging that discussion here, much is made of
>> roughly 20,000 USA firearms homicides per year but nobody
>> much cares about 70,000 people who are admitted to a
>> hospital and, while there, contract infection and die as a
>> result. That's a large number of people.
>>
> I think that your figures may be outdated. See
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1820440/
> The estimated deaths associated with HAIs in U.S. hospitals were
> 98,987
>
>> Fatal medical errors altogether are a humongous number and
>> extremely complex but iatric infection alone for 70,000 dead
>> people? really?
>>
>> Oh by the way as we saw with the Wuhan Bioweapon, death
>> report numbers are massaged, so if the medical racket admits
>> 70,000 it's at least that many, no less.
>>
>> Taking nothing from the deserved praise of medical
>> researchers (one of my brothers among them) and inventors,
>> and always with a tip of the hat to the saintly RNs, the
>> system has system deficiencies. These are management and
>> incentive failures and they're not getting better.
>
>
> Out of curiosity I have tried to research why the U.S. is rated so low
> in medical care and while it is certainly rated far below other
> countries, the quoted "reason" I see is that it is tremendously
> expensive, and, perhaps as a result USians don't go to the doctor as
> frequently.
>
> The other reason I see listed for poor medical care is that the U.S.'s
> medical system is ceremoniously inefficient with reasons ranging from
> that no insurance plan has sufficient participants to be really
> effective in negations with the Medical Industry to doctors making
> more money from treating patients then curing patients.
>

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 7:44:21 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/31/2022 10:31 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 8:02:18 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 3/31/2022 6:54 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:15:44 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/30/2022 8:46 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 20:21:56 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 3/30/2022 6:01 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 07:33:01 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 3:05 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 23:37:56 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 7:57:00 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:22:58 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:51:18 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:40:22 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of those rare occasions where I have to partially side with Tom.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you need a neurologist you need a good one, and my experiences had me shopping a bit to find one that was a good fit. The first one was totally useless - perhaps he would have been good if my symptoms had been different but for me he was the wrong one.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, lining one up ahead of time seems unlikely to work. You don't know what your problem is going to be, and as has been pointed out bicycle injuries are not the majority of reasons to see one; add to that by the time you need one the local guy will have retired or been bought out.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The strategy I recommend is first trust your primary care to recommend someone, then if you have the slightest doubt demand a second opinion. That's what I did and it worked out well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well you're correct that some neurologists are not good. They mostly treat various forms of dementia and entirely forget treating concussion. But knowing where a couple of neurologists are is important if you need a good one. I was initially sent to a very bad one by my MD and he didn't know anything. And then my MD refused to look any further. Thanks to my friend he got me to a good one at Stanford (I suppose having football team members there doesn't hurt).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I showed how many head injuries there are each year and while fewer of those are concussions than football causes that is STILL a considerable number of serious concussions. Apparently the "group of 5" don't believe in being prepared.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us Tommy boy, have you researched and lined up a doctor for the following much more likely physical problems:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Orthopedist for osteoporosis.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Rheumatologist for arthritis.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Cardiologist for heart attack.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Proctologist for hemorrhoids.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Podiatrist for foot problems.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 6. Ophthalmologist for eye problems.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 7. Nephrologist for your kidney disease.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 8. Hematologist for blood clots.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 9. Otolaryngologist for hearing loss.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 10. And last but certainly not least, actually this is the most important doctor of all for you Tommy to research and find a really good one, a PSYCHIATRIST for all of Tommy boy's mental irregularities. And Tommy, add in a Psychologist too. They are not medical doctors, but your problems are far more mental than physical, so a Psychologist will be able to help you a lot.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tommy, if you have not researched and found a good doctor for all of these likely issues, then you are just lying and yipping and yapping about your neurologist. These are more likely to occur and much higher up on the list of doctors for you to research. Get to it Tommy boy. Report back when you have every one of these doctors on your speed dial.
> >>>>>>>>>>> But, how does one select a "good" doctor? Do doctors publish their
> >>>>>>>>>>> grades in Medical school? Do doctors publish win/loss scores for
> >>>>>>>>>>> patients cured/died? How does one pick a "good" doctor?
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> John B.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I don't think you know they are "good" until after you see them for awhile. And I suppose you judge how "good" they were by whether you got better. In my lifetime of doctor seeing, I have been fortunate enough to have had some really "good" doctors. And would recommend them to others if I was asked. But it took a number of years for me to decide they were "good".
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But what is good, or what is better? If, for example. you have high
> >>>>>>>>> cholesterol, one doctor might recommend that you take LIVALO for your
> >>>>>>>>> problem, but another doctor might recommend lower doses of LIVALO but
> >>>>>>>>> also strongly recommend that you change your diet, lose weight and
> >>>>>>>>> start to exercise.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Which is the better doctor?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And which is the doctor that most will recommend to their friends?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's a complex question. The brother of a good friend is
> >>>>>>>> a suburban GP who says that mothers bring children in with
> >>>>>>>> viruses and demand antibiotics. His choice is either to do
> >>>>>>>> the right thing and say no, resulting in a reputation as a
> >>>>>>>> 'bad doctor' or to prescribe a very low dose of antibiotics
> >>>>>>>> with the understanding that most childhood viruses will
> >>>>>>>> clear them selves in a few days with rest.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And you can double that problem for doctors asked to
> >>>>>>>> prescribe morphine and similar. The patient knows that
> >>>>>>>> someone else (insurance company or welfare) will pick up
> >>>>>>>> most of the office visit and prescription charges, leaving
> >>>>>>>> the patient with a saleable item.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Add in that few MDs are independent professionals now.
> >>>>>>>> They're employees of large entities and capitated, which
> >>>>>>>> means time spent with a patient is strongly discouraged.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> How to approach that problem? Systematize pill pushing!
> >>>>>>>> https://www.bloombergquint.com/businessweek/cerebral-app-over-prescribed-adhd-meds-ex-employees-say
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Define 'good doctor' any way you like but the degradation of
> >>>>>>>> the medical industry (from the patient's view, not the
> >>>>>>>> revenue side of the industry) continues.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm not sure that I agree with you. I have a pacemaker, which keeps my
> >>>>>>> heart beating regularly. Not that many years ago there weren't any
> >>>>>>> such devices and I'd likely be dead today.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hardly degradation (:-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I wrote 'degradation' not 'disappearance'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Pacemakers have been around for some 70 years or so (with
> >>>>>> regular improvement I might add) which makes them hardly an
> >>>>>> exemplar of the current problems.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 62 years actually. the first pacemaker was implanted in a human, in
> >>>>> 1960, in a 77-year-old man, who lived for 10 months after the surgery.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But, I'm still not sure about "degradation" as that implies that
> >>>>> medical care is less, or less well done, today then it was in the
> >>>>> past, while I'm seeing things done today that would have been
> >>>>> considered impossible a generation ago.
> >>>>> https://thethaiger.com/news/national/siriraj-hospital-announces-thailands-first-successful-multi-visceral-transplant
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> My first comments on this subject above were, "It's complex".
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, innovation continues apace, as you note. Which is good.
> >>>>
> >>>> Systemic difficulties continue as well:
> >>>> https://newsmantraa.us/healthcare-acquired-infection-market-research-report-size-share-price-trends-and-forecast-to-2025/
> >>>>
> >>>> I touched on a few other negative trends earlier. A mixed
> >>>> bag at best, at great cost both in suffering and in dollars.
> >>>
> >>> Well, I did read your reference, above, but essentially it seemed to
> >>> say that the acquired infection market is growing as certainly one
> >>> would assume that it must given the population growth, i.e. more
> >>> people, more possible infections.
> >>>
> >>> Example, the "black death" is estimated to have killed some 25
> >>> million people in Europe, estimated to have been between 30% and 60%
> >>> of the population. Today, a disease that killed 30 - 60 percent of the
> >>> European population would kill 225 to 450 million.
> >>>
> >>> Added to that is the U.S. capitalistic system of charging all the
> >>> market will stand and I'm sure that the cost of sickness, in the U.S.
> >>> is skyrocketing.
> >>>
> >>> Here the government buys medicines on the open market with competitive
> >>> bidding and, I'm guessing here, my monthly medicine costs are far
> >>> lower, maybe 1/4, or less, that which you would pay in the U.S.
> >>> Goodness! You can just go to Canada or Mexico and get lower medicine
> >>> costs.
> >>>
> >> Without engaging that discussion here, much is made of
> >> roughly 20,000 USA firearms homicides per year but nobody
> >> much cares about 70,000 people who are admitted to a
> >> hospital and, while there, contract infection and die as a
> >> result. That's a large number of people.
> >
> > Probably, certainly, has a lot to do with intent. With the 20k firearm murders, the person with the gun intended and tried to murder the victim. But with the 70k hospital infections, no one at the hospital intentionally and purposely got the victim sick. No doctor or nurse injected some poison or virus or bacteria into the victim. A very similar thing happens with suicides. In 2020, suicide gun deaths were about 24k. Gun murders in 2020 were about 19k. But the gun murders get lots more publicity and concern because they were done by outside forces. Whereas suicides are done to oneself. Suicides are bad. But you do it to yourself. So...
> >
> > https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Fatal medical errors altogether are a humongous number and
> >> extremely complex but iatric infection alone for 70,000 dead
> >> people? really?
> >>
> >> Oh by the way as we saw with the Wuhan Bioweapon, death
> >> report numbers are massaged, so if the medical racket admits
> >> 70,000 it's at least that many, no less.
> >>
> >> Taking nothing from the deserved praise of medical
> >> researchers (one of my brothers among them) and inventors,
> >> and always with a tip of the hat to the saintly RNs, the
> >> system has system deficiencies. These are management and
> >> incentive failures and they're not getting better.
> Yes I don't disagree with you. Note that serious iatric
> infection (extended hospitalization) is somewhere north of a
> quarter million people per year besides the deaths.

On 4/1/2022 7:38 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 8:00:22 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/31/2022 2:30 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 11:42:51 AM UTC-4, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:49:44 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> Moral Hazard is a well-known factor in the insurance industry.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard#Insurance_industry
>>>>> "Two types of behavior can change. One type is the risky behavior itself, resulting in a before the event moral hazard. Insured parties then behave in a more risky manner, resulting in more negative consequences that the insurer must pay for. "
>>>>>
>>>> Something I've wondered about. Most industrialized countries outside the US have some version of universal health care.
>>>> Are young males more likely to do violent acts (like soccer hoolaganism, etc.) knowing that medical care will be available and free?
>>>> Or are kids that age not really capable of making that kind of association anyway?
>>>
>>> I don't believe children take such risks with the understanding they will be taken care of, but as they grow older and see a lack of a downside towards their actions they are likely to take more risks. A friend of mine has a son who started get into downhill racing when he was a teen. His parents indulged only on the condition that he wouldn't try riding extreme terrain without them around. The predictable happened, he went out to the local abandoned quarry after school with his friends in his new full body armor. Fortunately the result was only a broken collarbone and a few cracked ribs. He admitted he took a risk on a big drop because he thought the suit would protect him.
>> A detail: As I understand it, "moral hazard" differs a bit from "risk
>> compensation" (or "risk homeostasis") in that in a "moral hazard"
>> situation, the risk is borne by another - say, the insurance company. In
>> "risk compensation" the risk is borne by the participant.
>
> Insurance companies make no distinction from the perspective of the payout. As noted in my post, one type of behaviour is "before the event" moral hazard. Insured parties behave in a more risky manner under the assumption that there is insurance for the consequences. This is regardless of whether the risky behaviour results in personal damage or injury to the insured party or someone else (as in the Fried Green Tomatoes example).
>
> Another type is "after the event" moral hazard where the reaction to the negative consequences of risk once they have occurred is that the insurance company is asked to increase the scope of coverage related to risky behaviour. Insured parties then do not behave in a more risky manner that results in more negative consequences, but they ask an insurer to pay for more of the negative consequences from risk as insurance coverage increases.
>
> (the above was paraphrased and copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard#Insurance_industry)
>
> The end result is the same - the insurance company pays out. The only difference is whether the insured knowingly engaged in the risky behaviour or not.
>

I don't know. Never had any personal injury/medical
insurance myself.

But in property loss, there's always that deductible on one
end and discounted or capped coverage at the other end,
(besides uncovered ancillary effects) such that a loss still
hurts, either much or a great deal of suffering depending.

Which pissed me off all though 2020 when I heard repeatedly
(flippantly and in ignorance) that arson and looting were
not so bad 'because they're insured'. pffft.

Returning to your subject, I'll assume that bodily injury,
oh, say a torn shoulder socket, involves a lot of suffering
beyond any insurance payout (I've shredded both at different
times and it's a full year of limited motion/strength/ability).
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 7:45:31 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/31/2022 10:43 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 20:02:12 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/31/2022 6:54 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:15:44 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/30/2022 8:46 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 20:21:56 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 3/30/2022 6:01 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 07:33:01 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 3:05 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 23:37:56 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 7:57:00 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:22:58 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:51:18 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:40:22 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of those rare occasions where I have to partially side with Tom.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you need a neurologist you need a good one, and my experiences had me shopping a bit to find one that was a good fit. The first one was totally useless - perhaps he would have been good if my symptoms had been different but for me he was the wrong one.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, lining one up ahead of time seems unlikely to work. You don't know what your problem is going to be, and as has been pointed out bicycle injuries are not the majority of reasons to see one; add to that by the time you need one the local guy will have retired or been bought out.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The strategy I recommend is first trust your primary care to recommend someone, then if you have the slightest doubt demand a second opinion. That's what I did and it worked out well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well you're correct that some neurologists are not good. They mostly treat various forms of dementia and entirely forget treating concussion. But knowing where a couple of neurologists are is important if you need a good one. I was initially sent to a very bad one by my MD and he didn't know anything. And then my MD refused to look any further. Thanks to my friend he got me to a good one at Stanford (I suppose having football team members there doesn't hurt).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I showed how many head injuries there are each year and while fewer of those are concussions than football causes that is STILL a considerable number of serious concussions. Apparently the "group of 5" don't believe in being prepared.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us Tommy boy, have you researched and lined up a doctor for the following much more likely physical problems:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Orthopedist for osteoporosis.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Rheumatologist for arthritis.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Cardiologist for heart attack.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Proctologist for hemorrhoids.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Podiatrist for foot problems.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 6. Ophthalmologist for eye problems.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 7. Nephrologist for your kidney disease.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 8. Hematologist for blood clots.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 9. Otolaryngologist for hearing loss.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 10. And last but certainly not least, actually this is the most important doctor of all for you Tommy to research and find a really good one, a PSYCHIATRIST for all of Tommy boy's mental irregularities. And Tommy, add in a Psychologist too. They are not medical doctors, but your problems are far more mental than physical, so a Psychologist will be able to help you a lot.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tommy, if you have not researched and found a good doctor for all of these likely issues, then you are just lying and yipping and yapping about your neurologist. These are more likely to occur and much higher up on the list of doctors for you to research. Get to it Tommy boy. Report back when you have every one of these doctors on your speed dial.
> >>>>>>>>>>> But, how does one select a "good" doctor? Do doctors publish their
> >>>>>>>>>>> grades in Medical school? Do doctors publish win/loss scores for
> >>>>>>>>>>> patients cured/died? How does one pick a "good" doctor?
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> John B.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I don't think you know they are "good" until after you see them for awhile. And I suppose you judge how "good" they were by whether you got better. In my lifetime of doctor seeing, I have been fortunate enough to have had some really "good" doctors. And would recommend them to others if I was asked. But it took a number of years for me to decide they were "good".
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But what is good, or what is better? If, for example. you have high
> >>>>>>>>> cholesterol, one doctor might recommend that you take LIVALO for your
> >>>>>>>>> problem, but another doctor might recommend lower doses of LIVALO but
> >>>>>>>>> also strongly recommend that you change your diet, lose weight and
> >>>>>>>>> start to exercise.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Which is the better doctor?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And which is the doctor that most will recommend to their friends?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's a complex question. The brother of a good friend is
> >>>>>>>> a suburban GP who says that mothers bring children in with
> >>>>>>>> viruses and demand antibiotics. His choice is either to do
> >>>>>>>> the right thing and say no, resulting in a reputation as a
> >>>>>>>> 'bad doctor' or to prescribe a very low dose of antibiotics
> >>>>>>>> with the understanding that most childhood viruses will
> >>>>>>>> clear them selves in a few days with rest.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And you can double that problem for doctors asked to
> >>>>>>>> prescribe morphine and similar. The patient knows that
> >>>>>>>> someone else (insurance company or welfare) will pick up
> >>>>>>>> most of the office visit and prescription charges, leaving
> >>>>>>>> the patient with a saleable item.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Add in that few MDs are independent professionals now.
> >>>>>>>> They're employees of large entities and capitated, which
> >>>>>>>> means time spent with a patient is strongly discouraged.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> How to approach that problem? Systematize pill pushing!
> >>>>>>>> https://www.bloombergquint.com/businessweek/cerebral-app-over-prescribed-adhd-meds-ex-employees-say
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Define 'good doctor' any way you like but the degradation of
> >>>>>>>> the medical industry (from the patient's view, not the
> >>>>>>>> revenue side of the industry) continues.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm not sure that I agree with you. I have a pacemaker, which keeps my
> >>>>>>> heart beating regularly. Not that many years ago there weren't any
> >>>>>>> such devices and I'd likely be dead today.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hardly degradation (:-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I wrote 'degradation' not 'disappearance'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Pacemakers have been around for some 70 years or so (with
> >>>>>> regular improvement I might add) which makes them hardly an
> >>>>>> exemplar of the current problems.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 62 years actually. the first pacemaker was implanted in a human, in
> >>>>> 1960, in a 77-year-old man, who lived for 10 months after the surgery.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But, I'm still not sure about "degradation" as that implies that
> >>>>> medical care is less, or less well done, today then it was in the
> >>>>> past, while I'm seeing things done today that would have been
> >>>>> considered impossible a generation ago.
> >>>>> https://thethaiger.com/news/national/siriraj-hospital-announces-thailands-first-successful-multi-visceral-transplant
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> My first comments on this subject above were, "It's complex".
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, innovation continues apace, as you note. Which is good.
> >>>>
> >>>> Systemic difficulties continue as well:
> >>>> https://newsmantraa.us/healthcare-acquired-infection-market-research-report-size-share-price-trends-and-forecast-to-2025/
> >>>>
> >>>> I touched on a few other negative trends earlier. A mixed
> >>>> bag at best, at great cost both in suffering and in dollars.
> >>>
> >>> Well, I did read your reference, above, but essentially it seemed to
> >>> say that the acquired infection market is growing as certainly one
> >>> would assume that it must given the population growth, i.e. more
> >>> people, more possible infections.
> >>>
> >>> Example, the "black death" is estimated to have killed some 25
> >>> million people in Europe, estimated to have been between 30% and 60%
> >>> of the population. Today, a disease that killed 30 - 60 percent of the
> >>> European population would kill 225 to 450 million.
> >>>
> >>> Added to that is the U.S. capitalistic system of charging all the
> >>> market will stand and I'm sure that the cost of sickness, in the U.S.
> >>> is skyrocketing.
> >>>
> >>> Here the government buys medicines on the open market with competitive
> >>> bidding and, I'm guessing here, my monthly medicine costs are far
> >>> lower, maybe 1/4, or less, that which you would pay in the U.S.
> >>> Goodness! You can just go to Canada or Mexico and get lower medicine
> >>> costs.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Without engaging that discussion here, much is made of
> >> roughly 20,000 USA firearms homicides per year but nobody
> >> much cares about 70,000 people who are admitted to a
> >> hospital and, while there, contract infection and die as a
> >> result. That's a large number of people.
> >>
> > I think that your figures may be outdated. See
> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1820440/
> > The estimated deaths associated with HAIs in U.S. hospitals were
> > 98,987
> >
> >> Fatal medical errors altogether are a humongous number and
> >> extremely complex but iatric infection alone for 70,000 dead
> >> people? really?
> >>
> >> Oh by the way as we saw with the Wuhan Bioweapon, death
> >> report numbers are massaged, so if the medical racket admits
> >> 70,000 it's at least that many, no less.
> >>
> >> Taking nothing from the deserved praise of medical
> >> researchers (one of my brothers among them) and inventors,
> >> and always with a tip of the hat to the saintly RNs, the
> >> system has system deficiencies. These are management and
> >> incentive failures and they're not getting better.
> >
> >
> > Out of curiosity I have tried to research why the U.S. is rated so low
> > in medical care and while it is certainly rated far below other
> > countries, the quoted "reason" I see is that it is tremendously
> > expensive, and, perhaps as a result USians don't go to the doctor as
> > frequently.
> >
> > The other reason I see listed for poor medical care is that the U.S.'s
> > medical system is ceremoniously inefficient with reasons ranging from
> > that no insurance plan has sufficient participants to be really
> > effective in negations with the Medical Industry to doctors making
> > more money from treating patients then curing patients.
> >
> MDs do not drive policy any longer. They're employees.

On 3/31/2022 11:16 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 7:00:22 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/31/2022 2:30 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 11:42:51 AM UTC-4, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:49:44 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> Moral Hazard is a well-known factor in the insurance industry.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard#Insurance_industry
>>>>> "Two types of behavior can change. One type is the risky behavior itself, resulting in a before the event moral hazard. Insured parties then behave in a more risky manner, resulting in more negative consequences that the insurer must pay for. "
>>>>>
>>>> Something I've wondered about. Most industrialized countries outside the US have some version of universal health care.
>>>> Are young males more likely to do violent acts (like soccer hoolaganism, etc.) knowing that medical care will be available and free?
>>>> Or are kids that age not really capable of making that kind of association anyway?
>>>
>>> I don't believe children take such risks with the understanding they will be taken care of, but as they grow older and see a lack of a downside towards their actions they are likely to take more risks. A friend of mine has a son who started get into downhill racing when he was a teen. His parents indulged only on the condition that he wouldn't try riding extreme terrain without them around. The predictable happened, he went out to the local abandoned quarry after school with his friends in his new full body armor. Fortunately the result was only a broken collarbone and a few cracked ribs. He admitted he took a risk on a big drop because he thought the suit would protect him.
>> A detail: As I understand it, "moral hazard" differs a bit from "risk
>> compensation" (or "risk homeostasis") in that in a "moral hazard"
>> situation, the risk is borne by another - say, the insurance company. In
>> "risk compensation" the risk is borne by the participant.
>>
>> So I'd say Funk's example is risk compensation. Which, I'll add, is not
>> always unreasonable. If the increase in risk the person assumes is
>> comensurate with the increase in protection provided by the new
>> protection measure, it can be a wash. And example might be adding a
>> handrail to a staircase, then descending a bit more rapidly with hands
>> on the rails.
>>
>> The problem arises when someone has been convinced that the protection
>> makes them bulletproof, then takes risks that exceed the protective
>> capacity. Like downhiller body armor. Or like bike helmets.
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> Not sure how this story fits in here. Whether it is "moral hazard" or "risk compensation". But a LONG time ago I played high school football. For the Europeans participating in this forum, I mean American football, not soccer. Us kids wore shoulder pads and helmets. Big heavy plastic good helmets. You could probably take a baseball bat and hit someone with a helmet and they would be OK. But even as a teenage boy, I knew you did not use your helmeted head to spear someone. It would hurt. Most likely your neck. You hit people with your shoulder, not hour head. Despite having a big plastic protective helmet on your head.
>
> I don't rate the majority of human beings as too smart or savvy. But even the dumbest ones have a lot of self preservation motivation. So I am a little bit skeptical of people with protective gear such as helmets taking extra risk. A helmet, bicycle or skateboard or skiing, may keep you from getting brain dead. But you will still get cut and skinned up and broken bones and bruises. You will still feel lots of pain even if the injury is not super serious. Almost all humans try to avoid pain. Unless you are one of those S&M folks.

You may be skeptical, but it's quite normal for people to display risk
compensation behavior. For part of the population (I'd say many males
between ages 6 and 25 or so) the "it will still hurt" idea never enters
their mind. They know they are heroes and will emerge victorious with
nary a scratch after the narrowest escape, just like their movie hero.

I've seen a fair amount of data indicating helmeted cyclists crash more,
or are over represented in ER presentations. By that, I mean the percent
of cyclists in ER who say they were wearing a helmet is much higher than
the helmeted percentage of people riding.

See
https://road.cc/content/news/268605-wearing-cycle-helmet-may-increase-risk-injury-says-new-research
for some data.

And you might ask yourself: If you were riding in hilly or mountainous
terrain, would you descend exactly the same with or without a helmet? If
you were mountain biking, would you ride the same with or without a
helmet? My bet is you'd be more careful when bareheaded.

Some long gone poster from many years ago said here, after some
description of a busy road: "I would never ride that road without a
helmet." If he ever did ride it _with_ a helmet, that would have been
risk compensation - and probably, over compensation.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/1/2022 11:08 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 7:45:31 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/31/2022 10:43 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 20:02:12 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/31/2022 6:54 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:15:44 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 8:46 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 20:21:56 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 6:01 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 07:33:01 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 3:05 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 23:37:56 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 7:57:00 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:22:58 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:51:18 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:40:22 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of those rare occasions where I have to partially side with Tom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you need a neurologist you need a good one, and my experiences had me shopping a bit to find one that was a good fit. The first one was totally useless - perhaps he would have been good if my symptoms had been different but for me he was the wrong one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, lining one up ahead of time seems unlikely to work. You don't know what your problem is going to be, and as has been pointed out bicycle injuries are not the majority of reasons to see one; add to that by the time you need one the local guy will have retired or been bought out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The strategy I recommend is first trust your primary care to recommend someone, then if you have the slightest doubt demand a second opinion. That's what I did and it worked out well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well you're correct that some neurologists are not good. They mostly treat various forms of dementia and entirely forget treating concussion. But knowing where a couple of neurologists are is important if you need a good one. I was initially sent to a very bad one by my MD and he didn't know anything. And then my MD refused to look any further. Thanks to my friend he got me to a good one at Stanford (I suppose having football team members there doesn't hurt).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I showed how many head injuries there are each year and while fewer of those are concussions than football causes that is STILL a considerable number of serious concussions. Apparently the "group of 5" don't believe in being prepared.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us Tommy boy, have you researched and lined up a doctor for the following much more likely physical problems:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Orthopedist for osteoporosis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Rheumatologist for arthritis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Cardiologist for heart attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Proctologist for hemorrhoids.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Podiatrist for foot problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6. Ophthalmologist for eye problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7. Nephrologist for your kidney disease.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8. Hematologist for blood clots.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9. Otolaryngologist for hearing loss.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10. And last but certainly not least, actually this is the most important doctor of all for you Tommy to research and find a really good one, a PSYCHIATRIST for all of Tommy boy's mental irregularities. And Tommy, add in a Psychologist too. They are not medical doctors, but your problems are far more mental than physical, so a Psychologist will be able to help you a lot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tommy, if you have not researched and found a good doctor for all of these likely issues, then you are just lying and yipping and yapping about your neurologist. These are more likely to occur and much higher up on the list of doctors for you to research. Get to it Tommy boy. Report back when you have every one of these doctors on your speed dial.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, how does one select a "good" doctor? Do doctors publish their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> grades in Medical school? Do doctors publish win/loss scores for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> patients cured/died? How does one pick a "good" doctor?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I don't think you know they are "good" until after you see them for awhile. And I suppose you judge how "good" they were by whether you got better. In my lifetime of doctor seeing, I have been fortunate enough to have had some really "good" doctors. And would recommend them to others if I was asked. But it took a number of years for me to decide they were "good".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But what is good, or what is better? If, for example. you have high
>>>>>>>>>>> cholesterol, one doctor might recommend that you take LIVALO for your
>>>>>>>>>>> problem, but another doctor might recommend lower doses of LIVALO but
>>>>>>>>>>> also strongly recommend that you change your diet, lose weight and
>>>>>>>>>>> start to exercise.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which is the better doctor?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And which is the doctor that most will recommend to their friends?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's a complex question. The brother of a good friend is
>>>>>>>>>> a suburban GP who says that mothers bring children in with
>>>>>>>>>> viruses and demand antibiotics. His choice is either to do
>>>>>>>>>> the right thing and say no, resulting in a reputation as a
>>>>>>>>>> 'bad doctor' or to prescribe a very low dose of antibiotics
>>>>>>>>>> with the understanding that most childhood viruses will
>>>>>>>>>> clear them selves in a few days with rest.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And you can double that problem for doctors asked to
>>>>>>>>>> prescribe morphine and similar. The patient knows that
>>>>>>>>>> someone else (insurance company or welfare) will pick up
>>>>>>>>>> most of the office visit and prescription charges, leaving
>>>>>>>>>> the patient with a saleable item.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Add in that few MDs are independent professionals now.
>>>>>>>>>> They're employees of large entities and capitated, which
>>>>>>>>>> means time spent with a patient is strongly discouraged.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How to approach that problem? Systematize pill pushing!
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bloombergquint.com/businessweek/cerebral-app-over-prescribed-adhd-meds-ex-employees-say
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Define 'good doctor' any way you like but the degradation of
>>>>>>>>>> the medical industry (from the patient's view, not the
>>>>>>>>>> revenue side of the industry) continues.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that I agree with you. I have a pacemaker, which keeps my
>>>>>>>>> heart beating regularly. Not that many years ago there weren't any
>>>>>>>>> such devices and I'd likely be dead today.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hardly degradation (:-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wrote 'degradation' not 'disappearance'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pacemakers have been around for some 70 years or so (with
>>>>>>>> regular improvement I might add) which makes them hardly an
>>>>>>>> exemplar of the current problems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 62 years actually. the first pacemaker was implanted in a human, in
>>>>>>> 1960, in a 77-year-old man, who lived for 10 months after the surgery.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, I'm still not sure about "degradation" as that implies that
>>>>>>> medical care is less, or less well done, today then it was in the
>>>>>>> past, while I'm seeing things done today that would have been
>>>>>>> considered impossible a generation ago.
>>>>>>> https://thethaiger.com/news/national/siriraj-hospital-announces-thailands-first-successful-multi-visceral-transplant
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My first comments on this subject above were, "It's complex".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, innovation continues apace, as you note. Which is good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Systemic difficulties continue as well:
>>>>>> https://newsmantraa.us/healthcare-acquired-infection-market-research-report-size-share-price-trends-and-forecast-to-2025/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I touched on a few other negative trends earlier. A mixed
>>>>>> bag at best, at great cost both in suffering and in dollars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I did read your reference, above, but essentially it seemed to
>>>>> say that the acquired infection market is growing as certainly one
>>>>> would assume that it must given the population growth, i.e. more
>>>>> people, more possible infections.
>>>>>
>>>>> Example, the "black death" is estimated to have killed some 25
>>>>> million people in Europe, estimated to have been between 30% and 60%
>>>>> of the population. Today, a disease that killed 30 - 60 percent of the
>>>>> European population would kill 225 to 450 million.
>>>>>
>>>>> Added to that is the U.S. capitalistic system of charging all the
>>>>> market will stand and I'm sure that the cost of sickness, in the U.S.
>>>>> is skyrocketing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here the government buys medicines on the open market with competitive
>>>>> bidding and, I'm guessing here, my monthly medicine costs are far
>>>>> lower, maybe 1/4, or less, that which you would pay in the U.S.
>>>>> Goodness! You can just go to Canada or Mexico and get lower medicine
>>>>> costs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Without engaging that discussion here, much is made of
>>>> roughly 20,000 USA firearms homicides per year but nobody
>>>> much cares about 70,000 people who are admitted to a
>>>> hospital and, while there, contract infection and die as a
>>>> result. That's a large number of people.
>>>>
>>> I think that your figures may be outdated. See
>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1820440/
>>> The estimated deaths associated with HAIs in U.S. hospitals were
>>> 98,987
>>>
>>>> Fatal medical errors altogether are a humongous number and
>>>> extremely complex but iatric infection alone for 70,000 dead
>>>> people? really?
>>>>
>>>> Oh by the way as we saw with the Wuhan Bioweapon, death
>>>> report numbers are massaged, so if the medical racket admits
>>>> 70,000 it's at least that many, no less.
>>>>
>>>> Taking nothing from the deserved praise of medical
>>>> researchers (one of my brothers among them) and inventors,
>>>> and always with a tip of the hat to the saintly RNs, the
>>>> system has system deficiencies. These are management and
>>>> incentive failures and they're not getting better.
>>>
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity I have tried to research why the U.S. is rated so low
>>> in medical care and while it is certainly rated far below other
>>> countries, the quoted "reason" I see is that it is tremendously
>>> expensive, and, perhaps as a result USians don't go to the doctor as
>>> frequently.
>>>
>>> The other reason I see listed for poor medical care is that the U.S.'s
>>> medical system is ceremoniously inefficient with reasons ranging from
>>> that no insurance plan has sufficient participants to be really
>>> effective in negations with the Medical Industry to doctors making
>>> more money from treating patients then curing patients.
>>>
>> MDs do not drive policy any longer. They're employees.
>
> As I've shown, the vaccines themselves are causing significant harm.

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 9:55:24 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 7:44:21 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 3/31/2022 10:31 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 8:02:18 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> > >> On 3/31/2022 6:54 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:15:44 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 3/30/2022 8:46 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 20:21:56 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 3/30/2022 6:01 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 07:33:01 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 3:05 AM, John B. wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 23:37:56 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> > >>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 7:57:00 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:22:58 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo..com"
> > >>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:51:18 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:40:22 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of those rare occasions where I have to partially side with Tom.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you need a neurologist you need a good one, and my experiences had me shopping a bit to find one that was a good fit. The first one was totally useless - perhaps he would have been good if my symptoms had been different but for me he was the wrong one.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, lining one up ahead of time seems unlikely to work. You don't know what your problem is going to be, and as has been pointed out bicycle injuries are not the majority of reasons to see one; add to that by the time you need one the local guy will have retired or been bought out.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The strategy I recommend is first trust your primary care to recommend someone, then if you have the slightest doubt demand a second opinion. That's what I did and it worked out well.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well you're correct that some neurologists are not good. They mostly treat various forms of dementia and entirely forget treating concussion. But knowing where a couple of neurologists are is important if you need a good one. I was initially sent to a very bad one by my MD and he didn't know anything. And then my MD refused to look any further. Thanks to my friend he got me to a good one at Stanford (I suppose having football team members there doesn't hurt).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I showed how many head injuries there are each year and while fewer of those are concussions than football causes that is STILL a considerable number of serious concussions. Apparently the "group of 5" don't believe in being prepared.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us Tommy boy, have you researched and lined up a doctor for the following much more likely physical problems:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Orthopedist for osteoporosis.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Rheumatologist for arthritis.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Cardiologist for heart attack.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Proctologist for hemorrhoids.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Podiatrist for foot problems.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 6. Ophthalmologist for eye problems.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 7. Nephrologist for your kidney disease.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 8. Hematologist for blood clots.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 9. Otolaryngologist for hearing loss.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 10. And last but certainly not least, actually this is the most important doctor of all for you Tommy to research and find a really good one, a PSYCHIATRIST for all of Tommy boy's mental irregularities. And Tommy, add in a Psychologist too. They are not medical doctors, but your problems are far more mental than physical, so a Psychologist will be able to help you a lot.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tommy, if you have not researched and found a good doctor for all of these likely issues, then you are just lying and yipping and yapping about your neurologist. These are more likely to occur and much higher up on the list of doctors for you to research. Get to it Tommy boy. Report back when you have every one of these doctors on your speed dial.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> But, how does one select a "good" doctor? Do doctors publish their
> > >>>>>>>>>>> grades in Medical school? Do doctors publish win/loss scores for
> > >>>>>>>>>>> patients cured/died? How does one pick a "good" doctor?
> > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> John B.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I don't think you know they are "good" until after you see them for awhile. And I suppose you judge how "good" they were by whether you got better. In my lifetime of doctor seeing, I have been fortunate enough to have had some really "good" doctors. And would recommend them to others if I was asked. But it took a number of years for me to decide they were "good".
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> But what is good, or what is better? If, for example. you have high
> > >>>>>>>>> cholesterol, one doctor might recommend that you take LIVALO for your
> > >>>>>>>>> problem, but another doctor might recommend lower doses of LIVALO but
> > >>>>>>>>> also strongly recommend that you change your diet, lose weight and
> > >>>>>>>>> start to exercise.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Which is the better doctor?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> And which is the doctor that most will recommend to their friends?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> That's a complex question. The brother of a good friend is
> > >>>>>>>> a suburban GP who says that mothers bring children in with
> > >>>>>>>> viruses and demand antibiotics. His choice is either to do
> > >>>>>>>> the right thing and say no, resulting in a reputation as a
> > >>>>>>>> 'bad doctor' or to prescribe a very low dose of antibiotics
> > >>>>>>>> with the understanding that most childhood viruses will
> > >>>>>>>> clear them selves in a few days with rest.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> And you can double that problem for doctors asked to
> > >>>>>>>> prescribe morphine and similar. The patient knows that
> > >>>>>>>> someone else (insurance company or welfare) will pick up
> > >>>>>>>> most of the office visit and prescription charges, leaving
> > >>>>>>>> the patient with a saleable item.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Add in that few MDs are independent professionals now.
> > >>>>>>>> They're employees of large entities and capitated, which
> > >>>>>>>> means time spent with a patient is strongly discouraged.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> How to approach that problem? Systematize pill pushing!
> > >>>>>>>> https://www.bloombergquint.com/businessweek/cerebral-app-over-prescribed-adhd-meds-ex-employees-say
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Define 'good doctor' any way you like but the degradation of
> > >>>>>>>> the medical industry (from the patient's view, not the
> > >>>>>>>> revenue side of the industry) continues.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I'm not sure that I agree with you. I have a pacemaker, which keeps my
> > >>>>>>> heart beating regularly. Not that many years ago there weren't any
> > >>>>>>> such devices and I'd likely be dead today.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Hardly degradation (:-)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I wrote 'degradation' not 'disappearance'.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Pacemakers have been around for some 70 years or so (with
> > >>>>>> regular improvement I might add) which makes them hardly an
> > >>>>>> exemplar of the current problems.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 62 years actually. the first pacemaker was implanted in a human, in
> > >>>>> 1960, in a 77-year-old man, who lived for 10 months after the surgery.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> But, I'm still not sure about "degradation" as that implies that
> > >>>>> medical care is less, or less well done, today then it was in the
> > >>>>> past, while I'm seeing things done today that would have been
> > >>>>> considered impossible a generation ago.
> > >>>>> https://thethaiger.com/news/national/siriraj-hospital-announces-thailands-first-successful-multi-visceral-transplant
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> My first comments on this subject above were, "It's complex".
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yes, innovation continues apace, as you note. Which is good.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Systemic difficulties continue as well:
> > >>>> https://newsmantraa.us/healthcare-acquired-infection-market-research-report-size-share-price-trends-and-forecast-to-2025/
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I touched on a few other negative trends earlier. A mixed
> > >>>> bag at best, at great cost both in suffering and in dollars.
> > >>>
> > >>> Well, I did read your reference, above, but essentially it seemed to
> > >>> say that the acquired infection market is growing as certainly one
> > >>> would assume that it must given the population growth, i.e. more
> > >>> people, more possible infections.
> > >>>
> > >>> Example, the "black death" is estimated to have killed some 25
> > >>> million people in Europe, estimated to have been between 30% and 60%
> > >>> of the population. Today, a disease that killed 30 - 60 percent of the
> > >>> European population would kill 225 to 450 million.
> > >>>
> > >>> Added to that is the U.S. capitalistic system of charging all the
> > >>> market will stand and I'm sure that the cost of sickness, in the U.S.
> > >>> is skyrocketing.
> > >>>
> > >>> Here the government buys medicines on the open market with competitive
> > >>> bidding and, I'm guessing here, my monthly medicine costs are far
> > >>> lower, maybe 1/4, or less, that which you would pay in the U.S.
> > >>> Goodness! You can just go to Canada or Mexico and get lower medicine
> > >>> costs.
> > >>>
> > >> Without engaging that discussion here, much is made of
> > >> roughly 20,000 USA firearms homicides per year but nobody
> > >> much cares about 70,000 people who are admitted to a
> > >> hospital and, while there, contract infection and die as a
> > >> result. That's a large number of people.
> > >
> > > Probably, certainly, has a lot to do with intent. With the 20k firearm murders, the person with the gun intended and tried to murder the victim. But with the 70k hospital infections, no one at the hospital intentionally and purposely got the victim sick. No doctor or nurse injected some poison or virus or bacteria into the victim. A very similar thing happens with suicides. In 2020, suicide gun deaths were about 24k. Gun murders in 2020 were about 19k. But the gun murders get lots more publicity and concern because they were done by outside forces. Whereas suicides are done to oneself. Suicides are bad. But you do it to yourself. So...
> > >
> > > https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Fatal medical errors altogether are a humongous number and
> > >> extremely complex but iatric infection alone for 70,000 dead
> > >> people? really?
> > >>
> > >> Oh by the way as we saw with the Wuhan Bioweapon, death
> > >> report numbers are massaged, so if the medical racket admits
> > >> 70,000 it's at least that many, no less.
> > >>
> > >> Taking nothing from the deserved praise of medical
> > >> researchers (one of my brothers among them) and inventors,
> > >> and always with a tip of the hat to the saintly RNs, the
> > >> system has system deficiencies. These are management and
> > >> incentive failures and they're not getting better.
> > Yes I don't disagree with you. Note that serious iatric
> > infection (extended hospitalization) is somewhere north of a
> > quarter million people per year besides the deaths.
> It's pretty funny that Russell doesn't even seem to understand what I was saying at all. He makes the usual stupid comments as it there was some reason for them other than to challenge me. Well let him live and learn. From his comments he appears to be a teenager when he has proclaimed himself to be middle aged.
>
> Again I'll note: Why the disparity between numbers published by the CDC and those appearing in the Slime Stream Media about actual numbers of covid-19 deaths? While the Fauci followers are proclaiming one thing, the hard working statisticians of the CDC are saying something else altogether. And as I pointed out, the mortuary business has not seen any increases in profits.. Were you to believe the Slime Stream Media and their worshippers such as Russell and Flunky, they would have had a 30% increase in profits.

On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:45:27 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/31/2022 10:43 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 20:02:12 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/31/2022 6:54 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:15:44 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/30/2022 8:46 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 20:21:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 6:01 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 07:33:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 3:05 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 23:37:56 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>>> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 7:57:00 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:22:58 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:51:18 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:40:22 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of those rare occasions where I have to partially side with Tom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you need a neurologist you need a good one, and my experiences had me shopping a bit to find one that was a good fit. The first one was totally useless - perhaps he would have been good if my symptoms had been different but for me he was the wrong one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, lining one up ahead of time seems unlikely to work. You don't know what your problem is going to be, and as has been pointed out bicycle injuries are not the majority of reasons to see one; add to that by the time you need one the local guy will have retired or been bought out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The strategy I recommend is first trust your primary care to recommend someone, then if you have the slightest doubt demand a second opinion. That's what I did and it worked out well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well you're correct that some neurologists are not good. They mostly treat various forms of dementia and entirely forget treating concussion. But knowing where a couple of neurologists are is important if you need a good one. I was initially sent to a very bad one by my MD and he didn't know anything. And then my MD refused to look any further. Thanks to my friend he got me to a good one at Stanford (I suppose having football team members there doesn't hurt).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I showed how many head injuries there are each year and while fewer of those are concussions than football causes that is STILL a considerable number of serious concussions. Apparently the "group of 5" don't believe in being prepared.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us Tommy boy, have you researched and lined up a doctor for the following much more likely physical problems:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Orthopedist for osteoporosis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Rheumatologist for arthritis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Cardiologist for heart attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Proctologist for hemorrhoids.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Podiatrist for foot problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6. Ophthalmologist for eye problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7. Nephrologist for your kidney disease.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8. Hematologist for blood clots.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9. Otolaryngologist for hearing loss.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10. And last but certainly not least, actually this is the most important doctor of all for you Tommy to research and find a really good one, a PSYCHIATRIST for all of Tommy boy's mental irregularities. And Tommy, add in a Psychologist too. They are not medical doctors, but your problems are far more mental than physical, so a Psychologist will be able to help you a lot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tommy, if you have not researched and found a good doctor for all of these likely issues, then you are just lying and yipping and yapping about your neurologist. These are more likely to occur and much higher up on the list of doctors for you to research. Get to it Tommy boy. Report back when you have every one of these doctors on your speed dial.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But, how does one select a "good" doctor? Do doctors publish their
>>>>>>>>>>>> grades in Medical school? Do doctors publish win/loss scores for
>>>>>>>>>>>> patients cured/died? How does one pick a "good" doctor?
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I don't think you know they are "good" until after you see them for awhile. And I suppose you judge how "good" they were by whether you got better. In my lifetime of doctor seeing, I have been fortunate enough to have had some really "good" doctors. And would recommend them to others if I was asked. But it took a number of years for me to decide they were "good".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But what is good, or what is better? If, for example. you have high
>>>>>>>>>> cholesterol, one doctor might recommend that you take LIVALO for your
>>>>>>>>>> problem, but another doctor might recommend lower doses of LIVALO but
>>>>>>>>>> also strongly recommend that you change your diet, lose weight and
>>>>>>>>>> start to exercise.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which is the better doctor?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And which is the doctor that most will recommend to their friends?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's a complex question. The brother of a good friend is
>>>>>>>>> a suburban GP who says that mothers bring children in with
>>>>>>>>> viruses and demand antibiotics. His choice is either to do
>>>>>>>>> the right thing and say no, resulting in a reputation as a
>>>>>>>>> 'bad doctor' or to prescribe a very low dose of antibiotics
>>>>>>>>> with the understanding that most childhood viruses will
>>>>>>>>> clear them selves in a few days with rest.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And you can double that problem for doctors asked to
>>>>>>>>> prescribe morphine and similar. The patient knows that
>>>>>>>>> someone else (insurance company or welfare) will pick up
>>>>>>>>> most of the office visit and prescription charges, leaving
>>>>>>>>> the patient with a saleable item.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Add in that few MDs are independent professionals now.
>>>>>>>>> They're employees of large entities and capitated, which
>>>>>>>>> means time spent with a patient is strongly discouraged.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How to approach that problem? Systematize pill pushing!
>>>>>>>>> https://www.bloombergquint.com/businessweek/cerebral-app-over-prescribed-adhd-meds-ex-employees-say
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Define 'good doctor' any way you like but the degradation of
>>>>>>>>> the medical industry (from the patient's view, not the
>>>>>>>>> revenue side of the industry) continues.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that I agree with you. I have a pacemaker, which keeps my
>>>>>>>> heart beating regularly. Not that many years ago there weren't any
>>>>>>>> such devices and I'd likely be dead today.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hardly degradation (:-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wrote 'degradation' not 'disappearance'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pacemakers have been around for some 70 years or so (with
>>>>>>> regular improvement I might add) which makes them hardly an
>>>>>>> exemplar of the current problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 62 years actually. the first pacemaker was implanted in a human, in
>>>>>> 1960, in a 77-year-old man, who lived for 10 months after the surgery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, I'm still not sure about "degradation" as that implies that
>>>>>> medical care is less, or less well done, today then it was in the
>>>>>> past, while I'm seeing things done today that would have been
>>>>>> considered impossible a generation ago.
>>>>>> https://thethaiger.com/news/national/siriraj-hospital-announces-thailands-first-successful-multi-visceral-transplant
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My first comments on this subject above were, "It's complex".
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, innovation continues apace, as you note. Which is good.
>>>>>
>>>>> Systemic difficulties continue as well:
>>>>> https://newsmantraa.us/healthcare-acquired-infection-market-research-report-size-share-price-trends-and-forecast-to-2025/
>>>>>
>>>>> I touched on a few other negative trends earlier. A mixed
>>>>> bag at best, at great cost both in suffering and in dollars.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I did read your reference, above, but essentially it seemed to
>>>> say that the acquired infection market is growing as certainly one
>>>> would assume that it must given the population growth, i.e. more
>>>> people, more possible infections.
>>>>
>>>> Example, the "black death" is estimated to have killed some 25
>>>> million people in Europe, estimated to have been between 30% and 60%
>>>> of the population. Today, a disease that killed 30 - 60 percent of the
>>>> European population would kill 225 to 450 million.
>>>>
>>>> Added to that is the U.S. capitalistic system of charging all the
>>>> market will stand and I'm sure that the cost of sickness, in the U.S.
>>>> is skyrocketing.
>>>>
>>>> Here the government buys medicines on the open market with competitive
>>>> bidding and, I'm guessing here, my monthly medicine costs are far
>>>> lower, maybe 1/4, or less, that which you would pay in the U.S.
>>>> Goodness! You can just go to Canada or Mexico and get lower medicine
>>>> costs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Without engaging that discussion here, much is made of
>>> roughly 20,000 USA firearms homicides per year but nobody
>>> much cares about 70,000 people who are admitted to a
>>> hospital and, while there, contract infection and die as a
>>> result. That's a large number of people.
>>>
>> I think that your figures may be outdated. See
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1820440/
>> The estimated deaths associated with HAIs in U.S. hospitals were
>> 98,987
>>
>>> Fatal medical errors altogether are a humongous number and
>>> extremely complex but iatric infection alone for 70,000 dead
>>> people? really?
>>>
>>> Oh by the way as we saw with the Wuhan Bioweapon, death
>>> report numbers are massaged, so if the medical racket admits
>>> 70,000 it's at least that many, no less.
>>>
>>> Taking nothing from the deserved praise of medical
>>> researchers (one of my brothers among them) and inventors,
>>> and always with a tip of the hat to the saintly RNs, the
>>> system has system deficiencies. These are management and
>>> incentive failures and they're not getting better.
>>
>>
>> Out of curiosity I have tried to research why the U.S. is rated so low
>> in medical care and while it is certainly rated far below other
>> countries, the quoted "reason" I see is that it is tremendously
>> expensive, and, perhaps as a result USians don't go to the doctor as
>> frequently.
>>
>> The other reason I see listed for poor medical care is that the U.S.'s
>> medical system is ceremoniously inefficient with reasons ranging from
>> that no insurance plan has sufficient participants to be really
>> effective in negations with the Medical Industry to doctors making
>> more money from treating patients then curing patients.
>>
>
>
>MDs do not drive policy any longer. They're employees.

On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 11:36:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/1/2022 11:08 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 7:45:31 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2022 10:43 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 20:02:12 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/31/2022 6:54 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:15:44 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 8:46 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 20:21:56 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 6:01 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 07:33:01 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 3:05 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 23:37:56 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 7:57:00 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:22:58 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:51:18 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:40:22 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of those rare occasions where I have to partially side with Tom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you need a neurologist you need a good one, and my experiences had me shopping a bit to find one that was a good fit. The first one was totally useless - perhaps he would have been good if my symptoms had been different but for me he was the wrong one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, lining one up ahead of time seems unlikely to work. You don't know what your problem is going to be, and as has been pointed out bicycle injuries are not the majority of reasons to see one; add to that by the time you need one the local guy will have retired or been bought out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The strategy I recommend is first trust your primary care to recommend someone, then if you have the slightest doubt demand a second opinion. That's what I did and it worked out well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well you're correct that some neurologists are not good. They mostly treat various forms of dementia and entirely forget treating concussion. But knowing where a couple of neurologists are is important if you need a good one. I was initially sent to a very bad one by my MD and he didn't know anything. And then my MD refused to look any further. Thanks to my friend he got me to a good one at Stanford (I suppose having football team members there doesn't hurt).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I showed how many head injuries there are each year and while fewer of those are concussions than football causes that is STILL a considerable number of serious concussions. Apparently the "group of 5" don't believe in being prepared.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us Tommy boy, have you researched and lined up a doctor for the following much more likely physical problems:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Orthopedist for osteoporosis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Rheumatologist for arthritis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Cardiologist for heart attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Proctologist for hemorrhoids.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Podiatrist for foot problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6. Ophthalmologist for eye problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7. Nephrologist for your kidney disease.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8. Hematologist for blood clots.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9. Otolaryngologist for hearing loss.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10. And last but certainly not least, actually this is the most important doctor of all for you Tommy to research and find a really good one, a PSYCHIATRIST for all of Tommy boy's mental irregularities. And Tommy, add in a Psychologist too. They are not medical doctors, but your problems are far more mental than physical, so a Psychologist will be able to help you a lot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tommy, if you have not researched and found a good doctor for all of these likely issues, then you are just lying and yipping and yapping about your neurologist. These are more likely to occur and much higher up on the list of doctors for you to research. Get to it Tommy boy. Report back when you have every one of these doctors on your speed dial.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, how does one select a "good" doctor? Do doctors publish their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grades in Medical school? Do doctors publish win/loss scores for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patients cured/died? How does one pick a "good" doctor?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I don't think you know they are "good" until after you see them for awhile. And I suppose you judge how "good" they were by whether you got better. In my lifetime of doctor seeing, I have been fortunate enough to have had some really "good" doctors. And would recommend them to others if I was asked. But it took a number of years for me to decide they were "good".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But what is good, or what is better? If, for example. you have high
>>>>>>>>>>>> cholesterol, one doctor might recommend that you take LIVALO for your
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem, but another doctor might recommend lower doses of LIVALO but
>>>>>>>>>>>> also strongly recommend that you change your diet, lose weight and
>>>>>>>>>>>> start to exercise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is the better doctor?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And which is the doctor that most will recommend to their friends?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's a complex question. The brother of a good friend is
>>>>>>>>>>> a suburban GP who says that mothers bring children in with
>>>>>>>>>>> viruses and demand antibiotics. His choice is either to do
>>>>>>>>>>> the right thing and say no, resulting in a reputation as a
>>>>>>>>>>> 'bad doctor' or to prescribe a very low dose of antibiotics
>>>>>>>>>>> with the understanding that most childhood viruses will
>>>>>>>>>>> clear them selves in a few days with rest.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And you can double that problem for doctors asked to
>>>>>>>>>>> prescribe morphine and similar. The patient knows that
>>>>>>>>>>> someone else (insurance company or welfare) will pick up
>>>>>>>>>>> most of the office visit and prescription charges, leaving
>>>>>>>>>>> the patient with a saleable item.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Add in that few MDs are independent professionals now.
>>>>>>>>>>> They're employees of large entities and capitated, which
>>>>>>>>>>> means time spent with a patient is strongly discouraged.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How to approach that problem? Systematize pill pushing!
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bloombergquint.com/businessweek/cerebral-app-over-prescribed-adhd-meds-ex-employees-say
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Define 'good doctor' any way you like but the degradation of
>>>>>>>>>>> the medical industry (from the patient's view, not the
>>>>>>>>>>> revenue side of the industry) continues.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that I agree with you. I have a pacemaker, which keeps my
>>>>>>>>>> heart beating regularly. Not that many years ago there weren't any
>>>>>>>>>> such devices and I'd likely be dead today.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hardly degradation (:-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wrote 'degradation' not 'disappearance'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pacemakers have been around for some 70 years or so (with
>>>>>>>>> regular improvement I might add) which makes them hardly an
>>>>>>>>> exemplar of the current problems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 62 years actually. the first pacemaker was implanted in a human, in
>>>>>>>> 1960, in a 77-year-old man, who lived for 10 months after the surgery.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, I'm still not sure about "degradation" as that implies that
>>>>>>>> medical care is less, or less well done, today then it was in the
>>>>>>>> past, while I'm seeing things done today that would have been
>>>>>>>> considered impossible a generation ago.
>>>>>>>> https://thethaiger.com/news/national/siriraj-hospital-announces-thailands-first-successful-multi-visceral-transplant
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My first comments on this subject above were, "It's complex".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, innovation continues apace, as you note. Which is good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Systemic difficulties continue as well:
>>>>>>> https://newsmantraa.us/healthcare-acquired-infection-market-research-report-size-share-price-trends-and-forecast-to-2025/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I touched on a few other negative trends earlier. A mixed
>>>>>>> bag at best, at great cost both in suffering and in dollars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I did read your reference, above, but essentially it seemed to
>>>>>> say that the acquired infection market is growing as certainly one
>>>>>> would assume that it must given the population growth, i.e. more
>>>>>> people, more possible infections.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Example, the "black death" is estimated to have killed some 25
>>>>>> million people in Europe, estimated to have been between 30% and 60%
>>>>>> of the population. Today, a disease that killed 30 - 60 percent of the
>>>>>> European population would kill 225 to 450 million.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Added to that is the U.S. capitalistic system of charging all the
>>>>>> market will stand and I'm sure that the cost of sickness, in the U.S.
>>>>>> is skyrocketing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here the government buys medicines on the open market with competitive
>>>>>> bidding and, I'm guessing here, my monthly medicine costs are far
>>>>>> lower, maybe 1/4, or less, that which you would pay in the U.S.
>>>>>> Goodness! You can just go to Canada or Mexico and get lower medicine
>>>>>> costs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Without engaging that discussion here, much is made of
>>>>> roughly 20,000 USA firearms homicides per year but nobody
>>>>> much cares about 70,000 people who are admitted to a
>>>>> hospital and, while there, contract infection and die as a
>>>>> result. That's a large number of people.
>>>>>
>>>> I think that your figures may be outdated. See
>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1820440/
>>>> The estimated deaths associated with HAIs in U.S. hospitals were
>>>> 98,987
>>>>
>>>>> Fatal medical errors altogether are a humongous number and
>>>>> extremely complex but iatric infection alone for 70,000 dead
>>>>> people? really?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh by the way as we saw with the Wuhan Bioweapon, death
>>>>> report numbers are massaged, so if the medical racket admits
>>>>> 70,000 it's at least that many, no less.
>>>>>
>>>>> Taking nothing from the deserved praise of medical
>>>>> researchers (one of my brothers among them) and inventors,
>>>>> and always with a tip of the hat to the saintly RNs, the
>>>>> system has system deficiencies. These are management and
>>>>> incentive failures and they're not getting better.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Out of curiosity I have tried to research why the U.S. is rated so low
>>>> in medical care and while it is certainly rated far below other
>>>> countries, the quoted "reason" I see is that it is tremendously
>>>> expensive, and, perhaps as a result USians don't go to the doctor as
>>>> frequently.
>>>>
>>>> The other reason I see listed for poor medical care is that the U.S.'s
>>>> medical system is ceremoniously inefficient with reasons ranging from
>>>> that no insurance plan has sufficient participants to be really
>>>> effective in negations with the Medical Industry to doctors making
>>>> more money from treating patients then curing patients.
>>>>
>>> MDs do not drive policy any longer. They're employees.
>>
>> As I've shown, the vaccines themselves are causing significant harm.
>
>No you haven't, Tom.
>
>Your favorite twice-impeached, defeated former president said to get
>vaccinated. Surely you wouldn't disagree with him!

On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 16:21:58 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 9:55:24 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 7:44:21 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > On 3/31/2022 10:31 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > > On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 8:02:18 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> > >> On 3/31/2022 6:54 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > >>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:15:44 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> On 3/30/2022 8:46 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > >>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 20:21:56 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>> On 3/30/2022 6:01 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 07:33:01 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 3:05 AM, John B. wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 23:37:56 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> > >>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 7:57:00 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:22:58 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:51:18 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:40:22 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of those rare occasions where I have to partially side with Tom.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you need a neurologist you need a good one, and my experiences had me shopping a bit to find one that was a good fit. The first one was totally useless - perhaps he would have been good if my symptoms had been different but for me he was the wrong one.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, lining one up ahead of time seems unlikely to work. You don't know what your problem is going to be, and as has been pointed out bicycle injuries are not the majority of reasons to see one; add to that by the time you need one the local guy will have retired or been bought out.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The strategy I recommend is first trust your primary care to recommend someone, then if you have the slightest doubt demand a second opinion. That's what I did and it worked out well.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well you're correct that some neurologists are not good. They mostly treat various forms of dementia and entirely forget treating concussion. But knowing where a couple of neurologists are is important if you need a good one. I was initially sent to a very bad one by my MD and he didn't know anything. And then my MD refused to look any further. Thanks to my friend he got me to a good one at Stanford (I suppose having football team members there doesn't hurt).
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I showed how many head injuries there are each year and while fewer of those are concussions than football causes that is STILL a considerable number of serious concussions. Apparently the "group of 5" don't believe in being prepared.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us Tommy boy, have you researched and lined up a doctor for the following much more likely physical problems:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Orthopedist for osteoporosis.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Rheumatologist for arthritis.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Cardiologist for heart attack.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Proctologist for hemorrhoids.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Podiatrist for foot problems.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 6. Ophthalmologist for eye problems.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 7. Nephrologist for your kidney disease.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 8. Hematologist for blood clots.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 9. Otolaryngologist for hearing loss.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 10. And last but certainly not least, actually this is the most important doctor of all for you Tommy to research and find a really good one, a PSYCHIATRIST for all of Tommy boy's mental irregularities. And Tommy, add in a Psychologist too. They are not medical doctors, but your problems are far more mental than physical, so a Psychologist will be able to help you a lot.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tommy, if you have not researched and found a good doctor for all of these likely issues, then you are just lying and yipping and yapping about your neurologist. These are more likely to occur and much higher up on the list of doctors for you to research. Get to it Tommy boy. Report back when you have every one of these doctors on your speed dial.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> But, how does one select a "good" doctor? Do doctors publish their
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> grades in Medical school? Do doctors publish win/loss scores for
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> patients cured/died? How does one pick a "good" doctor?
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> --
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I don't think you know they are "good" until after you see them for awhile. And I suppose you judge how "good" they were by whether you got better. In my lifetime of doctor seeing, I have been fortunate enough to have had some really "good" doctors. And would recommend them to others if I was asked. But it took a number of years for me to decide they were "good".
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> But what is good, or what is better? If, for example. you have high
>> > >>>>>>>>> cholesterol, one doctor might recommend that you take LIVALO for your
>> > >>>>>>>>> problem, but another doctor might recommend lower doses of LIVALO but
>> > >>>>>>>>> also strongly recommend that you change your diet, lose weight and
>> > >>>>>>>>> start to exercise.
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> Which is the better doctor?
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> And which is the doctor that most will recommend to their friends?
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> That's a complex question. The brother of a good friend is
>> > >>>>>>>> a suburban GP who says that mothers bring children in with
>> > >>>>>>>> viruses and demand antibiotics. His choice is either to do
>> > >>>>>>>> the right thing and say no, resulting in a reputation as a
>> > >>>>>>>> 'bad doctor' or to prescribe a very low dose of antibiotics
>> > >>>>>>>> with the understanding that most childhood viruses will
>> > >>>>>>>> clear them selves in a few days with rest.
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> And you can double that problem for doctors asked to
>> > >>>>>>>> prescribe morphine and similar. The patient knows that
>> > >>>>>>>> someone else (insurance company or welfare) will pick up
>> > >>>>>>>> most of the office visit and prescription charges, leaving
>> > >>>>>>>> the patient with a saleable item.
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> Add in that few MDs are independent professionals now.
>> > >>>>>>>> They're employees of large entities and capitated, which
>> > >>>>>>>> means time spent with a patient is strongly discouraged.
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> How to approach that problem? Systematize pill pushing!
>> > >>>>>>>> https://www.bloombergquint.com/businessweek/cerebral-app-over-prescribed-adhd-meds-ex-employees-say
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> Define 'good doctor' any way you like but the degradation of
>> > >>>>>>>> the medical industry (from the patient's view, not the
>> > >>>>>>>> revenue side of the industry) continues.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> I'm not sure that I agree with you. I have a pacemaker, which keeps my
>> > >>>>>>> heart beating regularly. Not that many years ago there weren't any
>> > >>>>>>> such devices and I'd likely be dead today.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> Hardly degradation (:-)
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> I wrote 'degradation' not 'disappearance'.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Pacemakers have been around for some 70 years or so (with
>> > >>>>>> regular improvement I might add) which makes them hardly an
>> > >>>>>> exemplar of the current problems.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> 62 years actually. the first pacemaker was implanted in a human, in
>> > >>>>> 1960, in a 77-year-old man, who lived for 10 months after the surgery.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> But, I'm still not sure about "degradation" as that implies that
>> > >>>>> medical care is less, or less well done, today then it was in the
>> > >>>>> past, while I'm seeing things done today that would have been
>> > >>>>> considered impossible a generation ago.
>> > >>>>> https://thethaiger.com/news/national/siriraj-hospital-announces-thailands-first-successful-multi-visceral-transplant
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> My first comments on this subject above were, "It's complex".
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Yes, innovation continues apace, as you note. Which is good.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Systemic difficulties continue as well:
>> > >>>> https://newsmantraa.us/healthcare-acquired-infection-market-research-report-size-share-price-trends-and-forecast-to-2025/
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> I touched on a few other negative trends earlier. A mixed
>> > >>>> bag at best, at great cost both in suffering and in dollars.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Well, I did read your reference, above, but essentially it seemed to
>> > >>> say that the acquired infection market is growing as certainly one
>> > >>> would assume that it must given the population growth, i.e. more
>> > >>> people, more possible infections.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Example, the "black death" is estimated to have killed some 25
>> > >>> million people in Europe, estimated to have been between 30% and 60%
>> > >>> of the population. Today, a disease that killed 30 - 60 percent of the
>> > >>> European population would kill 225 to 450 million.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Added to that is the U.S. capitalistic system of charging all the
>> > >>> market will stand and I'm sure that the cost of sickness, in the U.S.
>> > >>> is skyrocketing.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Here the government buys medicines on the open market with competitive
>> > >>> bidding and, I'm guessing here, my monthly medicine costs are far
>> > >>> lower, maybe 1/4, or less, that which you would pay in the U.S.
>> > >>> Goodness! You can just go to Canada or Mexico and get lower medicine
>> > >>> costs.
>> > >>>
>> > >> Without engaging that discussion here, much is made of
>> > >> roughly 20,000 USA firearms homicides per year but nobody
>> > >> much cares about 70,000 people who are admitted to a
>> > >> hospital and, while there, contract infection and die as a
>> > >> result. That's a large number of people.
>> > >
>> > > Probably, certainly, has a lot to do with intent. With the 20k firearm murders, the person with the gun intended and tried to murder the victim. But with the 70k hospital infections, no one at the hospital intentionally and purposely got the victim sick. No doctor or nurse injected some poison or virus or bacteria into the victim. A very similar thing happens with suicides. In 2020, suicide gun deaths were about 24k. Gun murders in 2020 were about 19k. But the gun murders get lots more publicity and concern because they were done by outside forces. Whereas suicides are done to oneself. Suicides are bad. But you do it to yourself. So...
>> > >
>> > > https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> Fatal medical errors altogether are a humongous number and
>> > >> extremely complex but iatric infection alone for 70,000 dead
>> > >> people? really?
>> > >>
>> > >> Oh by the way as we saw with the Wuhan Bioweapon, death
>> > >> report numbers are massaged, so if the medical racket admits
>> > >> 70,000 it's at least that many, no less.
>> > >>
>> > >> Taking nothing from the deserved praise of medical
>> > >> researchers (one of my brothers among them) and inventors,
>> > >> and always with a tip of the hat to the saintly RNs, the
>> > >> system has system deficiencies. These are management and
>> > >> incentive failures and they're not getting better.
>> > Yes I don't disagree with you. Note that serious iatric
>> > infection (extended hospitalization) is somewhere north of a
>> > quarter million people per year besides the deaths.
>> It's pretty funny that Russell doesn't even seem to understand what I was saying at all. He makes the usual stupid comments as it there was some reason for them other than to challenge me. Well let him live and learn. From his comments he appears to be a teenager when he has proclaimed himself to be middle aged.
>>
>> Again I'll note: Why the disparity between numbers published by the CDC and those appearing in the Slime Stream Media about actual numbers of covid-19 deaths? While the Fauci followers are proclaiming one thing, the hard working statisticians of the CDC are saying something else altogether. And as I pointed out, the mortuary business has not seen any increases in profits. Were you to believe the Slime Stream Media and their worshippers such as Russell and Flunky, they would have had a 30% increase in profits.
>
>HOW DARE YOU TOMMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Calling me "middle aged".
>I am NOT middle aged!!!!!!!!! I am young, youthful!!!!!!!!!! Or at least I still consider myself that way. When I am dreaming. Although I will admit when I look in the mirror every morning, I do see some/lot white hair on the sideburns and moustache and whiskers. None up top yet. But what is up top is kinda going away.
>
>https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home
>CDC says 978,254 dead from Covid-19. Total cases of Covid-19 is 79,947,165. Current Covid-19 hospitalizations 10,786. People receiving at least one dose of Covid-19 vaccine 255,582,575. All USA numbers. Not world.
>Tommy, are you hearing people claim different Covid-19 numbers? Are they claiming more deaths? Or less deaths? Almost 1 million DEAD seems high enough for me. Not much reason to exaggerate it higher or lower. 1 million DEAD is a whole lot in just over two years.

On 4/1/2022 7:17 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:45:27 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/31/2022 10:43 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 20:02:12 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/31/2022 6:54 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:15:44 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 8:46 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 20:21:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 6:01 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 07:33:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2022 3:05 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 23:37:56 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>>>> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 7:57:00 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:22:58 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:51:18 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:40:22 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of those rare occasions where I have to partially side with Tom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you need a neurologist you need a good one, and my experiences had me shopping a bit to find one that was a good fit. The first one was totally useless - perhaps he would have been good if my symptoms had been different but for me he was the wrong one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, lining one up ahead of time seems unlikely to work. You don't know what your problem is going to be, and as has been pointed out bicycle injuries are not the majority of reasons to see one; add to that by the time you need one the local guy will have retired or been bought out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The strategy I recommend is first trust your primary care to recommend someone, then if you have the slightest doubt demand a second opinion. That's what I did and it worked out well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well you're correct that some neurologists are not good. They mostly treat various forms of dementia and entirely forget treating concussion. But knowing where a couple of neurologists are is important if you need a good one. I was initially sent to a very bad one by my MD and he didn't know anything. And then my MD refused to look any further. Thanks to my friend he got me to a good one at Stanford (I suppose having football team members there doesn't hurt).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I showed how many head injuries there are each year and while fewer of those are concussions than football causes that is STILL a considerable number of serious concussions. Apparently the "group of 5" don't believe in being prepared.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us Tommy boy, have you researched and lined up a doctor for the following much more likely physical problems:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Orthopedist for osteoporosis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Rheumatologist for arthritis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Cardiologist for heart attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Proctologist for hemorrhoids.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Podiatrist for foot problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6. Ophthalmologist for eye problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7. Nephrologist for your kidney disease.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8. Hematologist for blood clots.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9. Otolaryngologist for hearing loss.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10. And last but certainly not least, actually this is the most important doctor of all for you Tommy to research and find a really good one, a PSYCHIATRIST for all of Tommy boy's mental irregularities. And Tommy, add in a Psychologist too. They are not medical doctors, but your problems are far more mental than physical, so a Psychologist will be able to help you a lot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tommy, if you have not researched and found a good doctor for all of these likely issues, then you are just lying and yipping and yapping about your neurologist. These are more likely to occur and much higher up on the list of doctors for you to research. Get to it Tommy boy. Report back when you have every one of these doctors on your speed dial.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, how does one select a "good" doctor? Do doctors publish their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> grades in Medical school? Do doctors publish win/loss scores for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> patients cured/died? How does one pick a "good" doctor?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I don't think you know they are "good" until after you see them for awhile. And I suppose you judge how "good" they were by whether you got better. In my lifetime of doctor seeing, I have been fortunate enough to have had some really "good" doctors. And would recommend them to others if I was asked. But it took a number of years for me to decide they were "good".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But what is good, or what is better? If, for example. you have high
>>>>>>>>>>> cholesterol, one doctor might recommend that you take LIVALO for your
>>>>>>>>>>> problem, but another doctor might recommend lower doses of LIVALO but
>>>>>>>>>>> also strongly recommend that you change your diet, lose weight and
>>>>>>>>>>> start to exercise.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which is the better doctor?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And which is the doctor that most will recommend to their friends?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's a complex question. The brother of a good friend is
>>>>>>>>>> a suburban GP who says that mothers bring children in with
>>>>>>>>>> viruses and demand antibiotics. His choice is either to do
>>>>>>>>>> the right thing and say no, resulting in a reputation as a
>>>>>>>>>> 'bad doctor' or to prescribe a very low dose of antibiotics
>>>>>>>>>> with the understanding that most childhood viruses will
>>>>>>>>>> clear them selves in a few days with rest.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And you can double that problem for doctors asked to
>>>>>>>>>> prescribe morphine and similar. The patient knows that
>>>>>>>>>> someone else (insurance company or welfare) will pick up
>>>>>>>>>> most of the office visit and prescription charges, leaving
>>>>>>>>>> the patient with a saleable item.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Add in that few MDs are independent professionals now.
>>>>>>>>>> They're employees of large entities and capitated, which
>>>>>>>>>> means time spent with a patient is strongly discouraged.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How to approach that problem? Systematize pill pushing!
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bloombergquint.com/businessweek/cerebral-app-over-prescribed-adhd-meds-ex-employees-say
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Define 'good doctor' any way you like but the degradation of
>>>>>>>>>> the medical industry (from the patient's view, not the
>>>>>>>>>> revenue side of the industry) continues.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that I agree with you. I have a pacemaker, which keeps my
>>>>>>>>> heart beating regularly. Not that many years ago there weren't any
>>>>>>>>> such devices and I'd likely be dead today.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hardly degradation (:-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wrote 'degradation' not 'disappearance'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pacemakers have been around for some 70 years or so (with
>>>>>>>> regular improvement I might add) which makes them hardly an
>>>>>>>> exemplar of the current problems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 62 years actually. the first pacemaker was implanted in a human, in
>>>>>>> 1960, in a 77-year-old man, who lived for 10 months after the surgery.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, I'm still not sure about "degradation" as that implies that
>>>>>>> medical care is less, or less well done, today then it was in the
>>>>>>> past, while I'm seeing things done today that would have been
>>>>>>> considered impossible a generation ago.
>>>>>>> https://thethaiger.com/news/national/siriraj-hospital-announces-thailands-first-successful-multi-visceral-transplant
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My first comments on this subject above were, "It's complex".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, innovation continues apace, as you note. Which is good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Systemic difficulties continue as well:
>>>>>> https://newsmantraa.us/healthcare-acquired-infection-market-research-report-size-share-price-trends-and-forecast-to-2025/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I touched on a few other negative trends earlier. A mixed
>>>>>> bag at best, at great cost both in suffering and in dollars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I did read your reference, above, but essentially it seemed to
>>>>> say that the acquired infection market is growing as certainly one
>>>>> would assume that it must given the population growth, i.e. more
>>>>> people, more possible infections.
>>>>>
>>>>> Example, the "black death" is estimated to have killed some 25
>>>>> million people in Europe, estimated to have been between 30% and 60%
>>>>> of the population. Today, a disease that killed 30 - 60 percent of the
>>>>> European population would kill 225 to 450 million.
>>>>>
>>>>> Added to that is the U.S. capitalistic system of charging all the
>>>>> market will stand and I'm sure that the cost of sickness, in the U.S.
>>>>> is skyrocketing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here the government buys medicines on the open market with competitive
>>>>> bidding and, I'm guessing here, my monthly medicine costs are far
>>>>> lower, maybe 1/4, or less, that which you would pay in the U.S.
>>>>> Goodness! You can just go to Canada or Mexico and get lower medicine
>>>>> costs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Without engaging that discussion here, much is made of
>>>> roughly 20,000 USA firearms homicides per year but nobody
>>>> much cares about 70,000 people who are admitted to a
>>>> hospital and, while there, contract infection and die as a
>>>> result. That's a large number of people.
>>>>
>>> I think that your figures may be outdated. See
>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1820440/
>>> The estimated deaths associated with HAIs in U.S. hospitals were
>>> 98,987
>>>
>>>> Fatal medical errors altogether are a humongous number and
>>>> extremely complex but iatric infection alone for 70,000 dead
>>>> people? really?
>>>>
>>>> Oh by the way as we saw with the Wuhan Bioweapon, death
>>>> report numbers are massaged, so if the medical racket admits
>>>> 70,000 it's at least that many, no less.
>>>>
>>>> Taking nothing from the deserved praise of medical
>>>> researchers (one of my brothers among them) and inventors,
>>>> and always with a tip of the hat to the saintly RNs, the
>>>> system has system deficiencies. These are management and
>>>> incentive failures and they're not getting better.
>>>
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity I have tried to research why the U.S. is rated so low
>>> in medical care and while it is certainly rated far below other
>>> countries, the quoted "reason" I see is that it is tremendously
>>> expensive, and, perhaps as a result USians don't go to the doctor as
>>> frequently.
>>>
>>> The other reason I see listed for poor medical care is that the U.S.'s
>>> medical system is ceremoniously inefficient with reasons ranging from
>>> that no insurance plan has sufficient participants to be really
>>> effective in negations with the Medical Industry to doctors making
>>> more money from treating patients then curing patients.
>>>
>>
>>
>> MDs do not drive policy any longer. They're employees.
>
> Perhaps I was being too subtle (:-) I was attempting to ridicule the
> argument that a doctor isn't paid to cure someone. How could he be?
> After all a chap visits a doctor, the doctor prescribes some medicine
> and the chap goes away and doesn't return. Is he cured? Or did he die?
>

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 7:22:00 PM UTC-4, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:

> Tommy, are you hearing people claim different Covid-19 numbers?
> Are they claiming more deaths? Or less deaths?
> Almost 1 million DEAD seems high enough for me.
> Not much reason to exaggerate it higher or lower.
> 1 million DEAD is a whole lot in just over two years.

Remember Russ, tommy has convinced himself that the CDC data only shows about 9000 deaths from covid.