Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ailments are the seeds of diseases which, if left unattended, may become serious diseases. Without an ailment the medical industry would have nothing to treat. In other words, an ailment is a mini-disease. So it would still come under the heading of "disease-care."
Injuries come under "injury-care."
Vaccines would come under the heading of "medical care".
So is injury care, medical care and disease care nit all heathcare? Is it not easier to label them under one term. My doctir does nitvwant me ro get diseases and ailments hence tries to catch them bwfire they start.
So what term do you want to use for annual checkups, for after operations check up or dietary advice? To me one word covers them all and one payer covers the costs for all of those. .
Also would tou use a different term to cover prenatal care, child birth and post natal care? Are those mot all part of health care?
When I had my heart attack i went to the ER where they confirmed it was a heart attack, they treated me, tried to get an air ambulance to take me to a larger centre sent me on my three hour ambulance trip to the larger city. Then I had care and advise and it was determined that I needed an operation, had the operation and was then in a recovery room. From there I went to another wardvwhere besides monitoring my heart I was provided with exercisesvand a therapist for that until I gotbout of the hospital. When I git home I then had a folow up call from the surgeon and visited my own doctor. Then I entered a eight week twice a week supervisefed exercise and workout program with phone follow ups afterwards plys access to on line programs on diet, exercise and other health subjects.
Just which parts of all this are not healthcare? I am healthier than I have been in several years, made some small adjustments to my eating habits and walk everyday not just most days now. I just do not see a better term to describe all if this or a single reason to look for a different term. It was my health that doctirs, nurses, therapists, lab techs and myself took care of and I am thankful for all they did. And at the rates the givernment oays for each service no one got rich. Perhaps it was all done under a for profit system my ideas might be different I do not know.
Of course there is no way of knowing whether I am the one out of thirty or not.
However, I have bad genetics. When I started looking into my genealogy I found that almost every direct ancestor died from cardiovascular disease. My mother, maternal grandmother, and maternal great grandmother all had strokes. Mother and her mother had coronary artery disease. Maternal grandfather had a heart attack (while chasing a cow). My father had coronary artery disease.
NNT for hypertension depends on the severity of the hypertension and existence of other risk factors.
What you say there is true. The higher risk you have, the more you stand to benefit and the lower the number needed to treat for patients like you.
Unfortunately, not everyone is in this situation and docs do prescribe meds for many with mild disease (or risk factors) without a full discussion of the risks/benefits.
What you say there is true. The higher risk you have, the more you stand to benefit and the lower the number needed to treat for patients like you.
Unfortunately, not everyone is in this situation and docs do prescribe meds for many with mild disease (or risk factors) without a full discussion of the risks/benefits.
It has been my experience that docs do discuss risks and benefits. I can tell when they launch their canned spiel about a drug. Also, every prescription I get filled - initial and refill - comes with a printout from the pharmacy about the medication. It is impossible for a physician to sit with a patient and discuss every adverse event that has ever been reported with a drug. That would require hours per patient.
It has been my experience that docs do discuss risks and benefits. I can tell when they launch their canned spiel about a drug. Also, every prescription I get filled - initial and refill - comes with a printout from the pharmacy about the medication. It is impossible for a physician to sit with a patient and discuss every adverse event that has ever been reported with a drug. That would require hours per patient.
Right, but they do not routinely discuss numbers needed to treat. I know this is not done for cancer screening. I don’t think it is done for other drugs either. It’s more “you need to get this test, I recommend that you start taking medication XYZ, here are the possible side effects, we can always fiddle with the dosage, change to another drug, etc.”
What they do not say is: “The most likely outcome is that this drug will not help you AT ALL, but still you probably won’t have side effects that are too horrible and it isn’t too expensive and who knows? You might be one of the lucky ones that it does help.” If they were truly honest, we get a discussion more along those lines.
I am in an arrhythmia group on FB and from their posts you would think that if they didn’t take an anticoagulant, they would most certainly have a stroke and if they do take one they can breathe free because they are protected against strokes. This is what 95% of the posters appear to believe when the reality is much more complex. Maybe their electrophysiologists did tell them the more complex reality and they didn’t grasp it. But I am pretty sure their conversations went more like this:
EP: “With your CHADS score, you really need to be on a blood thinner. I will start you on XYZ. The effects are typically …. I will need to see you again in X amount of time.” If efficacy is discussed, it will almost certainly be discussed in relative, not absolute percentages.
But very few people on that forum seem to be aware that even if their CHADS score is through the roof and they refuse anticoagulation, they are still more like not to have a stroke, than to have one. I think the stats in the study I read were they would have a 35% chance of having a stroke over the next ten years (which of course would mean 65% chance of not having a stroke). Of course a 35% chance of having a stroke is really high and if that were my risk, I would almost certainly go the anticoagulation route … just to be safe. At the same time I would go around thinking that I would certainly die if I didn’t have my blood thinners.
Right, but they do not routinely discuss numbers needed to treat. I know this is not done for cancer screening. I don’t think it is done for other drugs either. It’s more “you need to get this test, I recommend that you start taking medication XYZ, here are the possible side effects, we can always fiddle with the dosage, change to another drug, etc.”
What they do not say is: “The most likely outcome is that this drug will not help you AT ALL, but still you probably won’t have side effects that are too horrible and it isn’t too expensive and who knows? You might be one of the lucky ones that it does help.” If they were truly honest, we get a discussion more along those lines.
I am in an arrhythmia group on FB and from their posts you would think that if they didn’t take an anticoagulant, they would most certainly have a stroke and if they do take one they can breathe free because they are protected against strokes. This is what 95% of the posters appear to believe when the reality is much more complex. Maybe their electrophysiologists did tell them the more complex reality and they didn’t grasp it. But I am pretty sure their conversations went more like this:
EP: “With your CHADS score, you really need to be on a blood thinner. I will start you on XYZ. The effects are typically …. I will need to see you again in X amount of time.” If efficacy is discussed, it will almost certainly be discussed in relative, not absolute percentages.
But very few people on that forum seem to be aware that even if their CHADS score is through the roof and they refuse anticoagulation, they are still more like not to have a stroke, than to have one. I think the stats in the study I read were they would have a 35% chance of having a stroke over the next ten years (which of course would mean 65% chance of not having a stroke). Of course a 35% chance of having a stroke is really high and if that were my risk, I would almost certainly go the anticoagulation route … just to be safe. At the same time I would go around thinking that I would certainly die if I didn’t have my blood thinners.
I suspect docs tailor the conversation to the level of sophistication of the patient. How many will even understand what NNT is? How long would it take the doc to explain it until the average patient can understand it?
I have never used the term "disease" for my son that was born with a congenital heart defect. Nor have any of his top rated Cardiologists. A congenital heart defect (CHD) results when the heart, or blood vessels near the heart, don’t develop normally before birth.
He has yearly healthcare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongevitySeeker
And many patients have come to believe that if they take a pill that makes them feel well, then they consider themselves to be in "good health." Or reducing cholesterol to "normal" levels, means, to them, they are in good health.
One can still be in good health. Just because my cholesterol gets higher and higher with my age doesn't make me unhealthy.
healthcare = receiving care to maintain good health
my regular check up is called a "well woman exam."
pay attention to and be aware of the words you use, because they bring to you that which you name.
if you use the words "disease" "sickness" "injury" then that brings those into your life.
whereas taking care to use words such as "health and vitality" "strength and well being" "robust good health" your body hears and responds and manifests that.
even something as simple, for instance when a person wakes up in the morning instead of saying to themself "man my back hurts" or "these aches and pains are part of growing old", to say something like "i am feeling stronger every day" "my health, strength, stamina, and vitality are improving and increasing" "my immune system is getting stronger every day."
if i notice symptoms (for instance recently i was given a diagnosis of _____, which typically runs 5 weeks and then can have ongoing pain for months or years afterwards) then i say things like "i recover quickly" "this is a very mild case and I am back on my feet in no time" "my cells, body, and cellular structure are healing" "my natural state is robust health" (that is true by the way.)
and never say "i am sick" or "i have ________" (whatever name of disease) but rather "the doctor diagnosed this as _____". I work in healthcare and the phrase "I am not my diagnosis" is very powerful. It is not who you are . It is not who a patient is. we are human beings and the healthcare system supports us and assists us in living strong healthy lives.
i remember in 1999 being told by doctors that i had less than 6 months to live. someone at a meeting i attended calmly said things i have not ever forgotten, and continue to use to this day. "The doctor is one person. That is his opinion. It is the opinion of one person." "I choose not to accept that diagnosis." "think of it as the doctor handing you a parcel. you can choose to not take that package. I decline to accept it. I decline to receive what he is offering to me." "i disagree with his opinion."
What works for me is knowing that I don't eat ANY junk food. So every time I eat I see great health-promoting foods in front of me on my dish. Seeing and eating those healthy foods sends a powerful message that tells me I'm on the right track.
And that sets me free to tell the truth about medical doctors who practice disease-care. They're not practicing it on me because I'm healthy. I'm 81 and have never had a colonoscopy. Does that seem like I think negative thoughts about my health?
Marketing. Advertising that you treat the “the wretched refuse of your teeming shore” just doesnt have that cheery ring to it. Maybe even attracts the wrong kind of consumer without adequate ability to pay.
What works for me is knowing that I don't eat ANY junk food. So every time I eat I see great health-promoting foods in front of me on my dish. Seeing and eating those healthy foods sends a powerful message that tells me I'm on the right track.
And that sets me free to tell the truth about medical doctors who practice disease-care. They're not practicing it on me because I'm healthy. I'm 81 and have never had a colonoscopy. Does that seem like I think negative thoughts about my health?
I eat very healthy also. No fast food, no convenience food.
I don't do those "standard tests" either. Colonoscopy, mammogram, etc. I feel the medical field has become a money making industry. It is difficult to trust them. I do do the blood tests. My cholesterol is a problem--or so they think. I take the da*n statin to control it--I often wonder if my body would be fine without it and my normal cholesterol in my body handling it (it is over 300 without the statin). It is hereditary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
