The medical system is so corrupt

Why? What is your criteria for deciding that trauma care is preferable to other types of medical practice.

Because trauma leads to debilitation more often than death, and debilitation is costly not only to quality of life for the individual, but economically to society in general. Think of it like this, if a person is going to live, they should be able to live fully and productively as free from pain and impairment as possible, if a person is going to die, the need to be allowed to die. That's how you have to handle it when you live under the natural order of resource production to maintain a sustainable population/resource balance. What we have right now is a conflict in ethics, where we take away the ability of nature to control our population, yet we don't assist nature to a reflective degree in the production of the resources to provide for this burgeoning population. Right now we are killing ourselves with kindness, driving ourselves towards extinction with good intentions because we are not coming through with the required resources to deal with the outcome of those actions.

You can't have Healthcare say "Everyone must live" at the same time all the rest of the economic sector says "We must regard profits first, and sure profits lie in the past way of doing things". The two systems of though are incongruous. If you want to live in the past you have to create the population of the past as well as the rest of the conditions.

If we want to keep doing medicine as we do it, we have to start producing the resources to deal with it. In order to do that, we need to start Urban Agriculture and Energy co-ops. Recycle all those big old structures that use to be our industrial heart, now lay vacant, and make them into urban Kibutz type settings complete with living accommodation and medical/social center. We have to invest in the new generation of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell technology that allows us to use our current reserves of natural gas to provide power to the community more efficiently, cleanly, and profitably to the community, not only that they provide fresh produce year rounding the local area to service grocers and restaurants. These operations can make money, how much? Who know, they could make a fortune and change the global economic and energy system and revolutionize the economy, we can't know till we try.:dunno: At minimum though it would produce a reduction in social services costs and provide a positive community benefit in not only opportunity to be creative rather than destructive and provide a safe positive living area in some of the worst off communities in our country.

Once Medicine takes mankind out of the regulation of natural processes, well, then Medicine now has an obligation to deal with the consequences of their actions to be completely honest to their Hippocratic oath. We really need to start looking at the big picture, because population is heading towards critical.
 
Last edited:
I lived in luxembourg at the time, spent about a third of my time in germany, and my experience that day was typical.

I have worked in the german healthcare system and since I emigrated I have been back as a non-insured private patient consumer of healthcare services. Your experience is very much at odds with what I have seen over the course of the last 24 years.
You walk into a surgical departments walk-in clinic (ambulanz) as a cash paying 'privatpatient', they will roll out a carpet in front of you and beat away the unwashed masses with a stick. Private patients is where the money is. In a hospital, the privilege to treat (and particularly bill) them rests with the chairman or chief of staff and is handed down in a feudal patronage system. People cringe if they are asked to make a EU500 euro deposit before being seen, but access has never been an issue.
 
Henning, you are throwing around a lot of stats here without any back up. I'm particularly interested in this one, "The big cost factors are in cancer and disease treatments, this block takes up a huge financial block of health care system...", did you pull this out of your butt or do you have a link for this. It's not what I would have thought...
 
Because trauma leads to debilitation more often than death, and debilitation is costly not only to quality of life for the individual, but economically to society in general. Think of it like this, if a person is going to live, they should be able to live fully and productively as free from pain and impairment as possible, if a person is going to die, the need to be allowed to die. That's how you have to handle it when you live under the natural order of resource production to maintain a sustainable population/resource balance. What we have right now is a conflict in ethics, where we take away the ability of nature to control our population, yet we don't assist nature to a reflective degree in the production of the resources to provide for this burgeoning population. Right now we are killing ourselves with kindness, driving ourselves towards extinction with good intentions because we are not coming through with the required resources to deal with the outcome of those actions.

You can't have Healthcare say "Everyone must live" at the same time all the rest of the economic sector says "We must regard profits first, and sure profits lie in the past way of doing things". The two systems of though are incongruous. If you want to live in the past you have to create the population of the past as well as the rest of the conditions.

If we want to keep doing medicine as we do it, we have to start producing the resources to deal with it. In order to do that, we need to start Urban Agriculture and Energy co-ops. Recycle all those big old structures that use to be our industrial heart, now lay vacant, and make them into urban Kibutz type settings complete with living accommodation and medical/social center. We have to invest in the new generation of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell technology that allows us to use our current reserves of natural gas to provide power to the community more efficiently, cleanly, and profitably to the community, not only that they provide fresh produce year rounding the local area to service grocers and restaurants. These operations can make money, how much? Who know, they could make a fortune and change the global economic and energy system and revolutionize the economy, we can't know till we try.:dunno: At minimum though it would produce a reduction in social services costs and provide a positive community benefit in not only opportunity to be creative rather than destructive and provide a safe positive living area in some of the worst off communities in our country.

Once Medicine takes mankind out of the regulation of natural processes, well, then Medicine now has an obligation to deal with the consequences of their actions to be completely honest to their Hippocratic oath. We really need to start looking at the big picture, because population is heading towards critical.


Ah, no, just no Henning.
 
Because trauma leads to debilitation more often than death, and debilitation is costly not only to quality of life for the individual, but economically to society in general. Think of it like this, if a person is going to live, they should be able to live fully and productively as free from pain and impairment as possible, if a person is going to die, the need to be allowed to die. That's how you have to handle it when you live under the natural order of resource production to maintain a sustainable population/resource balance. What we have right now is a conflict in ethics, where we take away the ability of nature to control our population, yet we don't assist nature to a reflective degree in the production of the resources to provide for this burgeoning population. Right now we are killing ourselves with kindness, driving ourselves towards extinction with good intentions because we are not coming through with the required resources to deal with the outcome of those actions.

You can't have Healthcare say "Everyone must live" at the same time all the rest of the economic sector says "We must regard profits first, and sure profits lie in the past way of doing things". The two systems of though are incongruous. If you want to live in the past you have to create the population of the past as well as the rest of the conditions.

If we want to keep doing medicine as we do it, we have to start producing the resources to deal with it. In order to do that, we need to start Urban Agriculture and Energy co-ops. Recycle all those big old structures that use to be our industrial heart, now lay vacant, and make them into urban Kibutz type settings complete with living accommodation and medical/social center. We have to invest in the new generation of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell technology that allows us to use our current reserves of natural gas to provide power to the community more efficiently, cleanly, and profitably to the community, not only that they provide fresh produce year rounding the local area to service grocers and restaurants. These operations can make money, how much? Who know, they could make a fortune and change the global economic and energy system and revolutionize the economy, we can't know till we try.:dunno: At minimum though it would produce a reduction in social services costs and provide a positive community benefit in not only opportunity to be creative rather than destructive and provide a safe positive living area in some of the worst off communities in our country.

Once Medicine takes mankind out of the regulation of natural processes, well, then Medicine now has an obligation to deal with the consequences of their actions to be completely honest to their Hippocratic oath. We really need to start looking at the big picture, because population is heading towards critical.
Not enough time to respond in detail, hopefully later. Do you should also approve of the efforts of rheumatologists?
 
Not enough time to respond in detail, hopefully later. Do you should also approve of the efforts of rheumatologists?

Yes, definitely. My point is not that we need to reduce medical care to meet natural restrictions, what we should do is use the rest of our technical brilliance focused on the result of dealing with the demand that our future under these post natural order population levels that have come about as a result rather than focus on the quantity of capital that can be amassed. We as a species have to start looking at the big picture of where our species is going and prepare to provide for it, until then we are going to waste tons of money catching up to today's demands on a system that was designed to handle yesterday's circumstances and wasting a lot of money and time, just because that is how it concentrates wealth with the lowest risk and least capital investment.
 
Yes, definitely. My point is not that we need to reduce medical care to meet natural restrictions, what we should do is use the rest of our technical brilliance focused on the result of dealing with the demand that our future under these post natural order population levels that have come about as a result rather than focus on the quantity of capital that can be amassed. We as a species have to start looking at the big picture of where our species is going and prepare to provide for it, until then we are going to waste tons of money catching up to today's demands on a system that was designed to handle yesterday's circumstances and wasting a lot of money and time, just because that is how it concentrates wealth with the lowest risk and least capital investment.

Who decides what is worthwhile to treat and what is not worthwhile to treat?
 
Henning, you are throwing around a lot of stats here without any back up. I'm particularly interested in this one, "The big cost factors are in cancer and disease treatments, this block takes up a huge financial block of health care system...", did you pull this out of your butt or do you have a link for this. It's not what I would have thought...

Ok, so no answer yet from Henning, although to be fair, maybe he's working on it. So I tried out my google fu.

In 2009 our NHE National Healthcare Expenditure was $2.5 trillion. Also in 2009 we spent $87 billion on all cancer treatment. So..........


87,000,000,000 / 2,500,000,000,000 = 0.0348 => 3.48%

Hardly a huge financial block of health care system.

http://evimedgroup.blogspot.com/2011/01/national-healthcare-expenditures-2009.html

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/economic-impact-of-cancer
 
Who decides what is worthwhile to treat and what is not worthwhile to treat?

That is truly the dilemma is it not? There is no moral option that allows for this on a clear conscience is there? That right there indicates it is the incorrect choice as a solution to the problem. Doing nothing is not a good option either because it leading to extinction. That means the only viable course of action is to develop the technical infrastructure to produce the required volumes of resources as well as start getting large blocks of people off the planet in self sufficient. When we set that as our cultural goal, then we can do great things, but for that to happen, we need to evolve to that level of thinking.

One of the other rules of natural progression and evolution is evolve or become extinct. Our culture evolved immensely as a technical species since the days of the Fertile Crescent when it's history was first recorded. However our social evolution has not kept pace, we have the same issues now as in the beginning. Some of the first things recorded were the rules for dealing with each other and with money, and develop beyond our hoarder, hunter gatherer, instincts and develop compassion and cooperation for everyone and treat anyone as guest. In all this time, we have not been able to get our society to evolve that ethos though, and our population is reaching critical mass, so we will be on the evolutionary 'out' soon enough if we don't break through and start acting appropriately.
 
I want to know why we can figure out that we're causing global warming yet these super smart scientists can't figure out how to cure cancer. WTF! :dunno:
 
Who decides what is worthwhile to treat and what is not worthwhile to treat?

Are you on the (potential) plus side of contributing to society or are you on the minus side? If you are still contributing to it, you get treatment. If you aren't and can't pay for it out of your own pocket, sorry. For the good of the many, right?
 
Last edited:
I want to know why we can figure out that we're causing global warming yet these super smart scientists can't figure out how to cure cancer. WTF! :dunno:

You are comparing apples to oranges is why. Observation, understanding and knowledge of nature do not mean control over nature. Curing cancer you are asking them to overcome nature, to overcome death, it's a difficult and expensive process as well as a hopeless one. These smart scientists have known about cancer for a long time and also have known about our contribution to it, and that is where we are with the climate as well, so it's a fitting analogy. We know it's a natural process, we know we do things that contribute to make that process more energetic and what many of those things are, and are hopeless to end it. So we need to do with climate change what we do with cancer, manage it best we can, and like cancer, that means eliminating major known aggravating factors from society. We need to remove the burning of coal just like we removed asbestos. It would improve cancer as well as climate problems.
 
You are comparing apples to oranges is why. Observation, understanding and knowledge of nature do not mean control over nature. Curing cancer you are asking them to overcome nature, to overcome death, it's a difficult and expensive process as well as a hopeless one. These smart scientists have known about cancer for a long time and also have known about our contribution to it, and that is where we are with the climate as well, so it's a fitting analogy. We know it's a natural process, we know we do things that contribute to make that process more energetic and what many of those things are, and are hopeless to end it. So we need to do with climate change what we do with cancer, manage it best we can, and like cancer, that means eliminating major known aggravating factors from society. We need to remove the burning of coal just like we removed asbestos. It would improve cancer as well as climate problems.

How do we get rid of Al Gore and Obummer?
 
Back
Top