The Chief Complaint: Dr. Otis Brawley

[BDBoop]

The Chief Complaint: Dr. Otis Brawley - Features - Atlanta Magazine

I'm going to buy his book.

How does practicing at Grady affect your view of what’s happening in healthcare? I see a lot of people who suffer with undiagnosed chronic disease. These are folks who need healthcare and for one reason or another can’t get it. Sometimes they aren’t sophisticated enough to get into the system, or sometimes healthcare is just not available.

You’ve been thinking about the problems of American medicine for years. Why did you do this book now? I actually think we need to transform how we think of healthcare. Most of it is about responding to illness, not about preventing illness in the first place. Last year healthcare costs were 17.5 percent of our gross domestic product. That’s one and a half times the amount in the next most expensive country. On a per capita basis, it’s approaching $8,000 per person. When organizations like the American Cancer Society or the American Heart Association go to hire a clerk who makes $25,000 per year, we have to think about the fact that healthcare coverage for them—if they have a family of four—is upwards of $16,000 per year. If healthcare costs keep growing at the present rate, they’ll be 25 percent of our GDP by 2025. Healthcare is choking our economy.

But don’t some people believe that all this money buys us the best healthcare in the world? When we look at outcomes, such as life expectancy, we rank fiftieth. We have very high infant mortality rates. Even if you look at white male life expectancy in the U.S., it’s lower than places like Canada, whose healthcare system we criticize. We have tremendously more CT and MRI scanners than Canada per capita. People in the United States may not live longer than people in Canada, but we sure as hell do a better job taking pictures of them. We do not get what we pay for out of our healthcare system.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm going to buy his book.

does it advocate Republican capitalism or another stupid liberal scheme?

The Chinese had a stupid liberal scheme for every industry and everyone was starving to death. Then they switched to Republican capitalism and everyone is getting rich.

Why are liberals too slow to understand even such simple things??

 

[BDBoop]

Hm. My guess is, you didn't read the article. No surprise there.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Hm. My guess is, you didn't read the article. No surprise there.

does it support Republican capitalism?? Why not??

You don't need to buy that book, you need to buy a book that will explain to you how capitalism works

 

[BDBoop]

Is there a reason you are not discussing the article.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Is there a reason you are not discussing the article.

its idiotic liberal nonsense. If I'm wrong show us one intelligent thing it says

 

[BDBoop]

So you don't wish to discuss the article? Not a problem. Thanks for playin.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So you don't wish to discuss the article? Not a problem. Thanks for playin.

I do wish to discuss. You think its so great so why not start by pointing out one intelligent thing in it??

Why be so afraid? What does your fear tell you?? HOw will you learn if as a liberal you are afriad to try?

 

[Greenbeard]

The Chief Complaint: Dr. Otis Brawley - Features - Atlanta Magazine

I'm going to buy his book.

He's right that as a society we haven't been very good about valuing prevention. See the effort just this week to completely eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Or the uproar from certain quarters over the removal of any financial disincentives at the point-of-care for evidence-based preventive services.

His point about misallocation of resources and poor targeting of services--the "famine and gluttony exist side by side" frame is interesting--is well taken, too. Gets at the Catch-22 that bedevils the whole system: if you're poorer, you're more likely to be in poorer health as well and need more health resources, yet you're less likely to get those resources. So we heap more resources on some and less on others (who often could benefit from them the most).

Don Berwick was excoriated by the right for having pointed out exactly that in remarks a few years ago: "You could have protected the wealthy and the well, instead of recognizing that sick people tend to be poorer and that poor people tend to be sicker and that any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, MUST redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is, by definition, redistributional."

 

[BDBoop]

Thank you, and exactly.

This article hit home because my daughter suffers from headaches. Rather than attempting to determine the cause, they are treating the symptom (headache). And I see that across the boards. Unless the patient makes a determined effort to seek alternative medicine, it all seems to be about aiming us at big pharma.

 

[saveliberty]

Just make fast food places have disclaimers on their advertizing. Eating this food may lead to obesity and death.

Our eating habits are terrible. That is why we rank so low, NOT the amount of money spent or access to healthcare. Frame the argument responsibly please.

 

[BDBoop]

Just make fast food places have disclaimers on their advertizing. Eating this food may lead to obesity and death.

Our eating habits are terrible. That is why we rank so low, NOT the amount of money spent or access to healthcare. Frame the argument responsibly please.

The argument is fine. How many people have stopped smoking or drinking, knowing the risks.

 

[saveliberty]

No, the argument is for more money in preventative care. Instead, it should be on reducing the source of preventative problems. Poor diet and overeating. This is NOT a call for taxation or funding of government diet programs.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I read the article Boop, but I have to admit that I am very skeptical. The bottom line here being that we need to 'redistribute' health assets to those in poverty. The assertion being made that preventative medicine will decrease our mortality and increase infant and adult life expectancy. Agreed, but with provisions. How we do that is the big issue here.

A recent bit of research shows that the poorer you are in the United States, the more over weight you are. Poverty gives rise to drug abuse, alcoholism, tobacco use, and a break down of the family. Yet, since 1964 we have thrown 10 TRILLION dollars at the war on poverty with little measurable results. The status of black families in this nation is abysmal, yet the hispanic family unit is alive and well at the same economic levels.

We are just shy of 16 TRILLION dollars in debt and of the 50 states, 40 of them have budget deficits that could choke a horse. Obamacare is now scheduled to cost just shy of 2 TRILLION dollars for the next ten years AND the Congressional Budget Office has announced that for the sixth time since it passed, they are going to have to revise their cost estimates because they are too low. Since the passage of Obamacare, health insurance premiums have raised 15% across the board and the Insurance Institute has announced that in the next five years, another 15% increase if Obamacare is allowed to stand. If you raised the income tax on those making over $250,000 to 40% without deductions, you would have an extra 200 billion dollars in income over the next ten years.

I see cutting in our future unfortunately...

 

[BDBoop]

No, the argument is for more money in preventative care. Instead, it should be on reducing the source of preventative problems. Poor diet and overeating. This is NOT a call for taxation or funding of government diet programs.

How many people have stopped smoking or drinking, knowing the risks.

 

[BDBoop]

I read the article Boop, but I have to admit that I am very skeptical. The bottom line here being that we need to 'redistribute' health assets to those in poverty. The assertion being made that preventative medicine will decrease our mortality and increase infant and adult life expectancy. Agreed, but with provisions. How we do that is the big issue here.

A recent bit of research shows that the poorer you are in the United States, the more over weight you are. Poverty gives rise to drug abuse, alcoholism, tobacco use, and a break down of the family. Yet, since 1964 we have thrown 10 TRILLION dollars at the war on poverty with little measurable results. The status of black families in this nation is abysmal, yet the hispanic family unit is alive and well at the same economic levels.

We are just shy of 16 TRILLION dollars in debt and of the 50 states, 40 of them have budget deficits that could choke a horse. Obamacare is now scheduled to cost just shy of 2 TRILLION dollars for the next ten years AND the Congressional Budget Office has announced that for the sixth time since it passed, they are going to have to revise their cost estimates because they are too low. Since the passage of Obamacare, health insurance premiums have raised 15% across the board and the Insurance Institute has announced that in the next five years, another 15% increase if Obamacare is allowed to stand. If you raised the income tax on those making over $250,000 to 40% without deductions, you would have an extra 200 billion dollars in income over the next ten years.

I see cutting in our future unfortunately...

I don't see cutting so much as restructuring. Maybe both. But the cutting needs to happen in places that people don't want to see it happen, for whatever reasons they have. Too much damage has already been done in the name of protecting the political sacred cows.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So you don't wish to discuss the article? Not a problem. Thanks for playin.

I do wish to discuss. You think its so great so why not start by pointing out one intelligent thing in it??

Why be so afraid? What does your fear tell you?? HOw will you learn if as a liberal you are afriad to try?

IMO you're simply being an asshole and spaming this entire thread. Go away, by posting nothing you've post everything you know.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I believe, when all the factors are in, that all American citizens should receive preventative care from prenatal to hospice and in doing so we would reduce costs and human suffering.

It is far cheaper to treat diabetes than to continue to pay for surgeries to lop of toes and feet.

It is cheaper to treat early stage cancer and many times curable.

It is cheaper to treat early stage heart disease.

It is cheaper to provide free immunization against communicable disease than to treat thousands during epidemics (Kaiser gives free Flu shots each year).

Chronic disease can be discovered and can be treated more cost-effectively if diagnosed early. Free physical examinations are cost-effective.

I have Kaiser, HMO, and one physical a year is free. Kaiser understands that prevention and early diagnosis is cost-effective. Why don't conservatives?

Why do we spend so much to defend our people from Islamo-Fascists, Commies and Martians and forget that many Americans die from undiagnosed disease? Disease which when treated early save lives, save money, save the business community by reducing legitimate sick days and is more humane?

 

[BDBoop]

Exactly. There is so much to be considered, but with this latest breakdown I had no idea was festering (I don't want to pay for anybody else's anything!!!!!11!!eleventy11!!!111!) I fear things are going to get worse instead of better.

And as long as I'm here? You're not paying for shit. Premiums are going up because the insurance industry is ever-increasing their profit margin. That is all.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is an important thread for the agenda as set out by Romney is to repeal "Obamacare". The only reason to repeal it is to allow the pharmacological Industry/Medical Insurance complex to continue to bleed the American people.

The one thing wrong with "Obamacare" is the Democrats wanted to design a horse and the lobbyists for the PI/MI complex made sure the Republicans protected their golden goose - so we ended up with a camel.