patrick.net

salt isn't an issue, but sugar is the issue. salt is a necessary mineral for the body to function properly, and lowering salt intake may have net negative nutiritional effects

The analysis of data is from more than 167 studies of people with normal or high blood pressure. These people were randomly assigned to eat either low- or high-sodium diets. The study found that consuming less than 2,800 milligrams of sodium a day helped lower blood pressure though the reductions were very small. The reductions were only an average of 1% for people who had normal blood pressure to begin with and 3.5% for people with high blood pressure. For example, if your BP is 140/90 then reducing salt will only bring it down to 138/89 which is insignificant and meaningless. Another issue with the lower sodium diet is that it increased triglycerides by 7%, which is a unhealthy blood fat and when elevated increases risk of heart disease, when compared with the people who were eating more than 3450mg of sodium which is about what the average American eats in a day.

Salt is an issue if your pressure (controlled with meds) is 140/90. I've been on meds for about five years, will probably be on them forever. It's a low dose with minimal side effects, enough to get me past the FAA every two years.

http://www.preventdisease.com/news/12/030112_World-Renown-Heart-Surgeon-Speaks-Out-On-What-Really-Causes-Heart-Disease.shtml

Becoming healthy would certainly solve the health care problem. Unfortunately, the very same interests that are profiting from the industry are the same one's who control the research.

1. Do you really believe the health care industry wants healthy people?

2. How would the bottom line be affected if a cure for all diseases were to be discovered?

The entire health care industry is a fraud. Everything you think you know is wrong.

1. Do you really believe the health care industry wants healthy people?

absolutely. the people that provide the service of health care, that is their goal. The "health" insurance industry, they get rich from people being of bad health, so no, it's not in their best interest.

2. How would the bottom line be affected if a cure for all diseases were to be discovered?

now you are just being silly with a cure for all diseases. It's the American diet that is the problem. top to bottom. government subsidizes all this ag. all this ag, utilizes so much good land. All that ag, is the single largest consumer of petroleum. The two biggest products? corn and soy. Most of it is used to feed animals. Animals aren't supposed to eat that crap, any more than humans, so the quality of a good diets life blood, animal protein, is of low quality. There is corn syrup (sugar) in everything we eat. That makes people extremely ill. It also puts enormous strain on the total health of our nation

Do you have any *scientific proof*, that a "bad diet" causes disease? Because if you don't, then there's no reason anyone should believe you.

"absolutely. the people that provide the service of health care, that is their goal. The "health" insurance industry, they get rich from people being of bad health, so no, it's not in their best interest."

Why do you believe them, is it because they told you? I'll tell you this: I know where you can find a pot of gold worth $10,000, but first you need to give me $1,000.

housingcasino4865 says

How would the bottom line be affected if a cure for all diseases were to be discovered?

Chris Rock: "...ain't no money in a cure! They're still mad about all the money they lost on Polio!"

The core idea of Obamacare is that everyone will be required by law to pay private health insurance companies unlimited premiums.

That is the STATED goal of Obamacare - but as we all know, it is better to gauge politicians by what they DO and not what they SAY.
If the real point of Obamacare was to help the uninsured get coverage, there would be more openness in getting insurance (for example, across state and maybe even national lines) and the penalties for not having insurance would be closer to the cost of getting insurance - not only is the yearly fine for no insurance only $600, the only way the government can collect it is to take it out of your income tax refund, if you have one.
In addition, Obamacare is SAID to be focused on cost controls- yet it's only cost control measure is cutting reimbursement rates like Medicare - which is help off every year by Congress. If the point were to actually control costs there would be more support for preventative measures instead of cutting them like the recent fracas over mammograms and prostate exams.
What do you think the REAL purpose of Obamacare is? To me, it seem more about increasing government regulation and control than about actually making anything better for citizens.

housingcasino4865 says

Do you have any *scientific proof*, that a "bad diet" causes disease? Because if you don't, then there's no reason anyone should believe you.

Diet is a huge contributer to many diseases and healthcare conditions. Obesity, smoking, and all the chemicals we place in our bodies are just some of the problems. But the results are still out on what nutrasweet and other chemicals are doing ot our bodies - and the external forces such as environmental causes of disease.

chemechie says

What do you think the REAL purpose of Obamacare is? To me, it seem more about increasing government regulation and control than about actually making anything better for citizens.

The purpose was to provide healthcare for everyone. The implementation was off, and until we have true socialzied medicine we're gonna have problems.

One of my medications - vital to my well-being - has been limited to four a month. If i have an episode, i need to limit it to four times a month. I've been to the emergency room because of this - and it cost $600. It'd be easier for them to pay the f'ing $50 it costs them, if that, to provide the medication I need.

They're killing me, the bastards!

housingcasino4865 says

Do you have any *scientific proof*, that a "bad diet" causes disease? Because if you don't, then there's no reason anyone should believe you.

Is this for real? Or is it a joke?

wthrfrk80 says

housingcasino4865 says

Do you have any *scientific proof*, that a "bad diet" causes disease? Because if you don't, then there's no reason anyone should believe you.

Is this for real? Or is it a joke?

I took it as a joke, or otherwise its too ignorant a statement to warrant a reply

The science is out there, read the links I posted, is a good place to start. We eat primarily local, fresh, fruits and veggies, along with nuts and animal protiens/fats. I have many friends and family that have begun to follow this form of diet.

I avoid gluten and sugar like the plague. They are highly toxic to humans and evidently animals as well. Pretty much take everything the herd "knows" about health and diet and do the opposite. The FDA food pyramid is more of a crime against humanity then hitler, UBL, kony etc combined

Harvard should be attacked as a terrorist entity for all the disinformation they perpetuate, and the so called science they muck. I don't need any bullshit scam "health" "insurance", because I properly fuel my body, hence I don't get sick

errc says

The FDA food pyramid is more of a crime against humanity then hitler, UBL, kony etc combined

That's a little extreme too, don't you think?

I really don't know who to believe anymore regarding diet. I just know that certain foods make me feel like shit after eating them: like cookies, doughnuts, pizza, and most fast food.

You might be gluten intolerant. I thought that was just a fad, but I did some experiments on myself, eating lots of gluten or no gluten for a week at a time each, and I'm pretty sure lots of gluten gives me the shits. Not eating gluten cures it.

It's possible to get your starches from rice, corn, potatoes, etc, but wheat is everywhere. Even knowing that something has gluten in it, I often eat it anyway. Totally worthwhile for certain desserts, pancakes, garlic bread, etc.

I mainly just "feel like shit" i.e. "feel bad" after eating those foods. I don't really notice it affecting my literal shits (except for, of course, Taco Bell).

One of the major problems I see is it does not create new doctors or nurses. So when the added work load hits those in the market it is not like they'll work faster to get to everyone.

Unless we start to reform the legal processes of licensing of doctors and nurses as well as how fast a drug clinical trial can be then we won't slow down health care costs.elliemae says

Diet is a huge contributer to many diseases and healthcare conditions. Obesity, smoking, and all the chemicals we place in our bodies are just some of the problems. But the results are still out on what nutrasweet and other chemicals are doing ot our bodies - and the external forces such as environmental causes of disease.

That is true. Very true but on the same argument it seems like we are treating people as if they are the banks again.

Socializing the losses (health care costs) but privatizing the gains (vices).
If someone smokes and we KNOW the costs are higher would it make more sense to get people to quit smoking before they get on medicare and medicade ? The same with every other addiction and obesity.

You have to know "health" "insurance" is a scam, in that they discriminate against smokers vs non-smokers, with higher rates, yet sugar consumers pay the same as those of us that don't consume the toxic drug

Patrick, why do you feel the need to "get your starches"?

People that aren't outwardly effected by gluten and sugar (don't put on fat), are paying the price on the inside. "Skinny fat" people suffer from bad health conditions just as bad as fat people, they just don't show it on the outside. Its why you hear the story of the 46 y.o in perfect health dropping dead of a heart attack out of nowhere.

Read the link in post 43

Other good reading

Good calories/bad calories by taubes (and for those less interested in reading in depth 400+ pages) why we get fat and what to do about it by taubes

Dr mercola has a solid site on the interwebs
Mark sisson - marksdailyapple.com

If you're not sure who to trust or what to eat, try eliminating things from your diet one at a time. I'm 30 and feel infinitely better then I did thru my 20's after adjusting my diet to nix out sugar and gluten. I still cheat once in awhile with a bowl of ice cream or some pizza and soda on occasion, but now that I know how it feels otherwise, I pay the price for indulging. Inflammation sucks

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

People will end up with medical insurance eating about 1/3rd to half of their income,

We're already at almost 1/4 of income. Premiums now average $15,000 per family out of $64,200 median family income, which is 23%.

http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il/il11/​medians2011_​sig.pdf for income

http://www.kff.org/insurance/092311nr.cfm for premiums

At this point I'd rather go to all "out of pocket" like it was a long ago, or full-bore socialized medicine. What we have now is a Frankenstein combination of the worst aspects of both.

errc says

I don't need any bullshit scam "health" "insurance", because I properly fuel my body, hence I don't get sick

Don't know how old you are or what your ethnic background is, nor do I know your genetics. All I can say is that one serious accident and you're fucked financially; and there are very healthy people who eat raw food and walk everywhere who still come down with serious diseases.

I work with patients everyday who didn't smoke, weren't around smoke, and lived healthy, active lifestyles. They still come down with cancers, heart disease, kidney disease, etc. Remember that Euell Gibbons died from natural causes.

amen, sorry but at least when it comes to healthcare; everyone for themselves just doesn't work.

Maybe healthcare should be considered basic infrastructure. I think there's a case to be made for that. Especially since many diseases are contagious. In that case, "no man is an island."

But basic infrastructure isn't cheap. It will mean much higher taxes to pay for it. But it might be cheaper than private insurance given the Crony Capitalist "racket" it seems to have become.

errc says

I don't need any bullshit scam "health" "insurance", because I properly fuel my body, hence I don't get sick

errc says

I'm 30

"I'm 30" says it all. It's good to be young, immortal, and know everything. Everyone gets one shot at it, enjoy it while it lasts.

You will get sick no matter what you eat. You can lower the probabilities of certain diseases with good diet and keeping in shape, but you will get sick and you will need health care as dictated by your genetics and plain old luck. Young children get terrible diseases like cancer. Do you really believe it is caused by a 2 or 3 year lifetime of bad diet?

[...]

curious2 says

Bob2356: Young children do indeed get cancer, in fact twice as many get leukemia now as a decade ago. Not coincidentally, America does six times more C-T scans than a decade ago, each with the radiation of 1,000 X-rays. Plus, all those mammograms (breast X-rays) on women of child-bearing age. No other country does that. #1 risk factor for childhood leukemia is radiation. It can be cured, expensively, but side effects can be lifelong.

Where do you get your information? From the National Cancer Institute:

"Long-term trends in incidence for leukemias and brain tumors, the most common childhood cancers, show patterns that are somewhat different from the others. Incidence of childhood leukemias appeared to rise in the early 1980s, with rates increasing from 3.3 cases per 100,000 in 1975 to 4.6 cases per 100,000 in 1985. Rates in the succeeding years have shown no consistent upward or downward trend and have ranged from 3.7 to 4.9 cases per 100,000"

Be careful how you read your statistics. There was a big bunch of articles about this last year in the mainstream press, but as usual poorly reported. Children get 5 times as many ct scans as 15 years ago, not 10. This was from a study by the journal on radiology and only talked about IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM. Not all children in general. At leukemia rates of 3.3 to 4.6 per 100k correlating with emergency room visit ct scans is very tenuous. To deny children ct scans as a diagnostic tool based on this would be insane, ct used properly in the right situation is a lifesaver.

Everything is a compromise. Careful studies need to be done all the time as new technologies, medicines, and procedures emerge to quantify benefits vs risks. It's not all some gigantic conspiracy.

[...]

"So premiums will be too high to pay, and yet we will all be required by law to pay.'

'Am I misunderstanding something here?"

No, you have stated it very well. My Kaiser premiums are up to $804 per month now. That's for little ol' lonesome me. I have seven years to go before I qualify for Medicare. I never thought I would wish that I was older than I am. Will I be able to make it with health care coverage over the next seven years? That's totally unknown.

I can't get coverage elsewhere, because of a pre-existing condition. Kaiser has high-deductible plans that are cheaper; they make you apply as a newcomer, no acknowledgement of being a member for thirty+ years. They denied my application, saying that I don't qualify because of the pre-existing condition. They also included a note saying that if I DID switch plans, they might cancel on Dec. 31, 2013, at which point I would have to go on a "government-mandated" plan.

WTF is that?

I as a senior, a nurse, a grandparent can see some benefits of Obama care however there are many parts of it that come leaking out that have been placed in the law that are not good that we continually are finding out. Eventually yes our premiums will probably sky rocket. My grandson has a pre-existing condition with a father who has PTSD from fighting for our freedom in Irag, that lost his job due to the effects of PTSD and now is also fighting to get VA benifits and or other insurance because now he has a had a preexisting condition, now another one. I am a senior planning to retire, insurance that covers everything needed is not cheap, and both my husband and I have preexisting problems. I see what Obama wanted to do and appreciate it but what I and others do not like about it is that it was done behind closed doors without our congress even seeing the whole bill. NO ONE does that unless there is something wrong 'dishonesty' what is He hiding? Now getting to the facts of life in the medical field many doctors are retiring due to this bill, good doctors too! Requirements for hospitals to get grants and medicare payments to run their hospitals safely and giving good hospital care is effecting the hospital nursing staff, the patients and Drs. No, we do not mind working hard but decreasing our staffing with a ratio of 6 pt a nurse and insurance requirements of discharge earlier than the patient being well enough is not good. Fighting infections and less medical errors is very good, but nurses are dropping out now too, and many nurses are already retirement age. We have seen many patients come back to the hospital within 3-7 days just due to the fact they were sent home due to recommendations and mandates rather than the doctors diagnosis and plan of care. Offering hospitals incentives to get grants are hurting our patient care. Nursing is a gift and a knowledge that is special and pts are our only objective is GOOD PATIENT CARE but with the staffing level ratios exceptional nursing care as each pt deserves and should get is now very hard and alot of time not an asset anymore with some hospitals only the dollar signs are looked at to obtain computers, renovation to please the obama care plan and systems so they can get the payback leaving the nurses - doctors and patients back in the distance. It must be stopped. I again agree some parts are good. but feel the plan should be stopped and redone slowly looking at each problem carefully and asking the American people what they want.

I forgot to mention I have a sister who lives in Canada, while they get good healthcare usually but not always as some Drs here and there are butchers and are there for just the money The main problem with therr healthcare is the waiting time for that care. They have to wait for long periods to get anything done, including preventative medicine and tests AND even if it is an emergency heart problem.

NURSE FROM BMT TX says

I as a senior, a nurse, a grandparent can see some benefits of Obama care however there are many parts of it that come leaking out that have been placed in the law that are not good that we continually are finding out.

The idea was awesome, the execution wasn't the best. Not sure why they didn't do a "medicare" for all option.

elliemae says

Not sure why they didn't do a "medicare" for all option.

Pretty sure that Medicare for all (paying into it for coverage) was shot down in backroom deals by the insurance oligopoly because it was huge threat to their profits.

They understood that the government would actually be much more efficient than they are.

[...]

Patrick, most of Obamacare is yet to be phased in, particularly the mandate. Another feature that is coming is a cap on the yearly percentage increase in healthcare premiums. The insurance companies raised premiums significantly last year in anticipation of this cap. They spiked their revenue anticipating less revenue growth in the future. These are the reasons your premiums have increased without any increase in services.

Wow, Dr. Gruber replied to my email about his comic book about Obamacare:

Thanks for writing.

The important thing to recognize is that any premium effects of the ACA aren't realized yet. the 73% rise you are seeing has nothing to do with the ACA but rather rising underlying medical costs and/or price gouging by insurers. the ACA hopes to eventually deal with this but only after 2014.

Please don't buy the rhetoric that price increases in 2012 have anything to do with a law that doesn't have much of an impact until 2014!

Jon Gruber

On 3/12/2012 2:08 PM, Patrick Killelea wrote:
> Hello Dr. Gruber,
> I just read your comic book "Health Care Reform" and while the book is
> pretty good, the ACA has so far made my life much worse rather than better.
>
> My own nongroup Blue Shield of California family premiums went up 73% in
> one year, and that's not due to any medical condition on our part. Just
> pure price gouging by insurers, which the ACA seems to have encouraged.
> All California insurers seem to have raised rates by about that amount
> in the last year or two. There is definitely no competition in that
> oligopoly. See this graph of my premiums:
>
> http://realestate.patrick.net/?p=602077
>
> Why is there no limit to what insurers can charge in premiums? Requiring
> insurers to spend 80% on health care costs just encourages them to pay
> much more for everything, so that their 20% is 20% of a bigger number.
>
> I don't expect a reply, but I have to let you know that the ACA is
> definitely not working for me.
>
> Patrick Killelea
> Menlo Park, CA
> p@patrick.net

--
Jonathan Gruber
Professor of Economics
MIT Department of Economics
50 Memorial Drive, E52-355
Cambridge, MA 02142
phone: 617-253-8892
fax: 617-253-1330
e-mail: gruberj@mit.edu
web: http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/gruberj/

[...]

wthrfrk80 says

At this point I'd rather go to all "out of pocket" like it was a long ago, or full-bore socialized medicine. What we have now is a Frankenstein combination of the worst aspects of both.

You sir, summed up the entire debate and I am entirely in agreement with you.

errc says

Seeing as how individuals are not allowed to purge student loans in bankruptcy (or even death),

No, actually death is one of the ways you can have a student loan discharged. Someone just needs to get a copy of the Death Certificate to the lender. See here.

Apparently you could have your loans discharged in bankruptcy hearings still but only in very rare circumstances.

Discharges are possible for total and permanent disability, school closure before completion of your program, and some other reasons. Check the link above.

On this subject. To be fair, it would be nice to remember that this disasterous legislation was NOT what Obama or the majority of the Democrats wanted. If we remember the debate, we would be better off remembering how the Republicans completely stonewalled any attempt to reform health care. Olympia Snow was just about the only Republican who would actually compromise (even if only slightly) in order to create this disasterous legislation.

Obama ran against a mandate. Hillary ran on the prospect of a mandate. Obama was forced to accept legislative reality. That reality was that he was dealing with Republican and Conservative Democrat legislators who were unwilling to even come to the table to consider any reform of our broken health care system. The Republicans and the Conservative Democrats held the entire process hostage until this pig of a bill was created out of the scorched earth left behind by the Republicans and Conservative Democrats.

Our only hope is if Obama gets re-elected and there are enough reasonable legislators elected who are serious about creating a real health care reform bill that would actually benefit the citizens of this country.

I'm not holding my breath. The entire process that gave birth to this mutant monster taught us how much the Republicans and Conservative Democrats hate "the common folk" and how much they love the health insurance cartels who we dare call "insurers." And the entire process showed how easily it is to manipulate dumb white conservative voters who hate Obama (for reasons that they can't quite specify *wink*) who still "want our country back." (Back from whom? Eh? Racist much?)

If we get Rick Santorum, expect the continued march toward fascism that we have been on since at least 1980 to speed up dramatically. If we get Romney expect that the march will continue, but that it might only take a little longer to acheive the true totalitarian segregated state that is the vision of the conservative power elite for anyone who doesn't belong to the 1% who control everything. If we get Obama and another whacko conservative congress, expect that the march toward fascism will continue, but that it would be only slightly slower than under Romney.

If some miracle of conscious intelligent thought sweeps over the general American voter simultaneously accompanied by another miracle that the choices for legislative office holders actually have the interests of the common citizens at heart, then we might have a prayer at a chance of emerging from the dark ages of American Corporate Fascism. Only then might we see a true reform of our disasterous health care system that benefits everyone.

Again, I'm not holding my breath.

Well, simcha. It's unamerican to defend the prez and pretend that he's not 100% responsible for everything that has occurred in the past 3 years.

Uh, correction here: Obama never considered or brought forth the single-payer option that a majority of Americans would support. The efforts to include it in the debate were squashed by the administration.

The insurance, drug, and medical companies got what they wanted, and bankruptcy's number one cause is still medical expenses.

monkframe says

Uh, correction here: Obama never considered or brought forth the single-payer option that a majority of Americans would support. The efforts to include it in the debate were squashed by the administration.

The insurance, drug, and medical companies got what they wanted, and bankruptcy's number one cause is still medical expenses.

Single payer would never have passed in the Senate and everyone knows it. Obama couldn't afford that level of embarrassment.

Latest hot rumor is the hard left wants the current bill killed just as badly as the hard right. Conservatives get their way for now and liberals preserve the issue for future elections (same as abortion) hoping to get another bite at the apple in 15-20 years when there's another Democrat in the White House. That's been the historical pattern since the end of World War II.

Wacking Hut says

Patrick, most of Obamacare is yet to be phased in, particularly the mandate. Another feature that is coming is a cap on the yearly percentage increase in healthcare premiums. The insurance companies raised premiums significantly last year in anticipation of this cap. They spiked their revenue anticipating less revenue growth in the future. These are the reasons your premiums have increased without any increase in services.

Most large companies are waiting to see what the Supreme Court does with it. That's also why there hasn't been a lot of hiring.