Comments stimulated by "Sicko" movie info
Having quickly read a little about the movie "Sicko" which illustrates some major failings of the existing health system, I feel an urge to make some comments from where I've been and seen and stand, which sometimes has been not the average path.
I'm looking at how to be providing maximum health for minimum cost, and how to adequately test out methods that can't get explored within the requirement of maximizing corporate profits as compared to existing product's profits.
Part of the problem is a basic specific weakness in the overall economic philosophy. For example, to produce a product that would replace existing profitable products, with products that would heal people better but bring less profit to the company, is not acceptable to corporate stockholders because it would lower their income; so some other means need be arranged to enable those better, but less profitable, health products to become available.
Our economic system, great as it is, has this kind of thing as a potentially fatal weakness; and it ought to be able to be fixed by a responsible people. The component corporate philosophy can't fix it by itself, since it does not have a wide enough responsibility and mandate to make it all work; they are there just to make a fast buck within their defined arena, and go home to spend it.
A system that only makes money off of sick people is not likely to really do something that will stop business from coming in. They will really have to hate their job to actually work themselves out of a job; they are much too well rewarded now to do any such thing.
Preventive maintenance intelligently done responsibly is what keeps things running and minimizes downtime and cost overall. Works for people, too.
Such preventive maintenance, wellness maximization focus, would need a major way to shift from a system built upon damage evaluation and emergency repair procedures. Their knowledge base can be useful, and lab testing procedures useful with their data of normal ranges, true; but a focus on the whole human being's system correct homeostasis system levels needs to be the criteria.
And, let people, including doctors, just do what they can do well; and do not demand they do something about that which they don't really know how to fix. A medical system that evolved from surgeons fixing broken bones and supporters who brewed herbs that were known to improve healing after sickness or injury, is not the same kind of wellness system that starts at the other end, that of observing what is working fine and well, and keeping it that way.
The system would be resorting to surgery and medications only when they have all goofed and an emergency happens; learning how to prevent it from happening again to all concerned, in the process. The old adage of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" does apply when the processes are considered of how to determine that it is working fine, not broke, so don't fix it.
To start at the other end of wellness, that of optimum wellness and efficiently keeping it that way by the health system, is most likely to find working processes among the "holistic practitioners" techniques, weird as they may seem to those focused on conventional emergency repairs to the body and/or the body mind. I have explored a few of these myself and found many of them a very wise investment for my wellbeing, for the most part; and also I have long followed online discussions sometimes involving these things so I know others are even better at it than I.
The key term for evaluation, is "efficiacy", the measure of how effective a protocol is at doing the job. It involves finding out if something really works by seeing if it does work. It does or it does not. Figuring out how or why is for some other kind of exercise instead of efficiacy. The testing proceses of efficiacy need be sufficiently openminded as to enable things that really work to be found working. It also means testing them for what is intended, not for some task it is not intended for and would fail at. Lots of ways to sabotage the testing, so it is important to do the job correctly. One quick way to gain pointers for what to test for efficiacy is to see what holistic materials people buy repeatedly: they will usualy only buy more of something that they have personally found works for what they want it to do.
This is different from building upon layers of scientific knowledge, all fitting together, and if something does not fit, it would be rejected in the current methodology. But lots of things got passed by in the development of science and technology, since development only went where paid for by profit seeking business concerns. Generally only exceptions were via grants for fundamental or specific approaches deemed valuable by members of governmental scientific staff, all needing an agenda to justify spending taxpayer's money. Over the years, too much has gotten bypassed or sheerly missed in the rush for profits.
Asking conventional medical allopathic practitioners to do this would be like asking those whose profession is in auto accident body shop repair work to do the preventive maintenance on your personal airplane. Probably some of them could do the job adequately, but only if they had other skills besides body shop work. Meantime, if you put them to work on your airplane without them having extraordinary non-body-shop-repair skills, your next flight is likely to be your last one. Our lives have been a little like this, enduring the existing system.
It makes everybody uncomfortable to put them in a position where they have to produce at what they don't have knowledge or other resources to do the job adequately; so avoid doing that. Start fresh; you will find there are some quite surprising skills some people already have for maintaining people's wellness, and have been in hiding due to regulations forbidding their contributions. Some have survived anyway, and they will need to be appreciated openly and fully to coax them out of the trenches, to urge them to begin exploring how to contribute to leading the way.
Meanwhile, the current esteemed and wealthy powerful experts in the current health/sickness system will understandably sometimes tend to consider this kind of thing as an invasion into their turf. An invasion to be fought back and stomped out of existence, to restore the good old days for themselves. Understandable. So the new system, if it were to be allowed to exist, would best find ways to absorb those practitioners into the newer larger viewpoint way, and let them keep their egos and good living enough for their comfort. We all deserve that kind of thing, anyway.
J E D Cline 20070628
I'm looking at how to be providing maximum health for minimum cost, and how to adequately test out methods that can't get explored within the requirement of maximizing corporate profits as compared to existing product's profits.
Part of the problem is a basic specific weakness in the overall economic philosophy. For example, to produce a product that would replace existing profitable products, with products that would heal people better but bring less profit to the company, is not acceptable to corporate stockholders because it would lower their income; so some other means need be arranged to enable those better, but less profitable, health products to become available.
Our economic system, great as it is, has this kind of thing as a potentially fatal weakness; and it ought to be able to be fixed by a responsible people. The component corporate philosophy can't fix it by itself, since it does not have a wide enough responsibility and mandate to make it all work; they are there just to make a fast buck within their defined arena, and go home to spend it.
A system that only makes money off of sick people is not likely to really do something that will stop business from coming in. They will really have to hate their job to actually work themselves out of a job; they are much too well rewarded now to do any such thing.
Preventive maintenance intelligently done responsibly is what keeps things running and minimizes downtime and cost overall. Works for people, too.
Such preventive maintenance, wellness maximization focus, would need a major way to shift from a system built upon damage evaluation and emergency repair procedures. Their knowledge base can be useful, and lab testing procedures useful with their data of normal ranges, true; but a focus on the whole human being's system correct homeostasis system levels needs to be the criteria.
And, let people, including doctors, just do what they can do well; and do not demand they do something about that which they don't really know how to fix. A medical system that evolved from surgeons fixing broken bones and supporters who brewed herbs that were known to improve healing after sickness or injury, is not the same kind of wellness system that starts at the other end, that of observing what is working fine and well, and keeping it that way.
The system would be resorting to surgery and medications only when they have all goofed and an emergency happens; learning how to prevent it from happening again to all concerned, in the process. The old adage of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" does apply when the processes are considered of how to determine that it is working fine, not broke, so don't fix it.
To start at the other end of wellness, that of optimum wellness and efficiently keeping it that way by the health system, is most likely to find working processes among the "holistic practitioners" techniques, weird as they may seem to those focused on conventional emergency repairs to the body and/or the body mind. I have explored a few of these myself and found many of them a very wise investment for my wellbeing, for the most part; and also I have long followed online discussions sometimes involving these things so I know others are even better at it than I.
The key term for evaluation, is "efficiacy", the measure of how effective a protocol is at doing the job. It involves finding out if something really works by seeing if it does work. It does or it does not. Figuring out how or why is for some other kind of exercise instead of efficiacy. The testing proceses of efficiacy need be sufficiently openminded as to enable things that really work to be found working. It also means testing them for what is intended, not for some task it is not intended for and would fail at. Lots of ways to sabotage the testing, so it is important to do the job correctly. One quick way to gain pointers for what to test for efficiacy is to see what holistic materials people buy repeatedly: they will usualy only buy more of something that they have personally found works for what they want it to do.
This is different from building upon layers of scientific knowledge, all fitting together, and if something does not fit, it would be rejected in the current methodology. But lots of things got passed by in the development of science and technology, since development only went where paid for by profit seeking business concerns. Generally only exceptions were via grants for fundamental or specific approaches deemed valuable by members of governmental scientific staff, all needing an agenda to justify spending taxpayer's money. Over the years, too much has gotten bypassed or sheerly missed in the rush for profits.
Asking conventional medical allopathic practitioners to do this would be like asking those whose profession is in auto accident body shop repair work to do the preventive maintenance on your personal airplane. Probably some of them could do the job adequately, but only if they had other skills besides body shop work. Meantime, if you put them to work on your airplane without them having extraordinary non-body-shop-repair skills, your next flight is likely to be your last one. Our lives have been a little like this, enduring the existing system.
It makes everybody uncomfortable to put them in a position where they have to produce at what they don't have knowledge or other resources to do the job adequately; so avoid doing that. Start fresh; you will find there are some quite surprising skills some people already have for maintaining people's wellness, and have been in hiding due to regulations forbidding their contributions. Some have survived anyway, and they will need to be appreciated openly and fully to coax them out of the trenches, to urge them to begin exploring how to contribute to leading the way.
Meanwhile, the current esteemed and wealthy powerful experts in the current health/sickness system will understandably sometimes tend to consider this kind of thing as an invasion into their turf. An invasion to be fought back and stomped out of existence, to restore the good old days for themselves. Understandable. So the new system, if it were to be allowed to exist, would best find ways to absorb those practitioners into the newer larger viewpoint way, and let them keep their egos and good living enough for their comfort. We all deserve that kind of thing, anyway.
J E D Cline 20070628
posted by Unknown at
15:16
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home