Currently viewing the category: "health care costs"

My Message

By On · Add Comment · In cultural authority, emergency room, good health, health care costs, health insurance, health paradigm, medical doctors, modern medicine, wellness, western medicine, World Health Organization (WHO)
Been getting lots of flak on a recent post about health care costs, and you know how much I love that. But one thing that comes up time and again, because people just can’t seem to see past the political brainwashing, is that my message is NOT about whether people should have, get, or pay (or not pay) for health insurance. No, that’s what the politicians talk about…that’s not my message.

My message is this: Health comes from within. It’s what you do for your body, regularly, that determines whether you will experience wellness or not. Absolutely no medicine will give you health. No organ removal will give you health. Either one may help you get over a hump, but none will provide you with health–only YOU can do that.

The western medical system is necessary for, and outstanding at, saving lives–it’s crisis care, or more aptly, sick care. As far as saving lives goes, nothing is better then western medicine. But let’s not mistake that for health. The reality is that the medical system has been the dominant system for over a century; and in its desire to protect the public (and retain full and absolute power economically, politically and as the cultural authority), it has infused its sick-care paradigm into every facet of the cultural psyche. The predominant view of “health care” is of going to the doctor for a check-up and then getting medication.

Except for one little problem: What medical doctors provide for the public has nothing to do with good health. Now let me explain, because certainly, saving lives preserves health in the most fundamental sense. Yes, I will give you that. But is health merely the absence of illness or disease? No! No logical person believes that today. In fact the World Health Organization’s (WHO) definition is just that:

Health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

Duh.

Worse yet, we see now how irresponsible use and/or overuse of the medical system actually makes people sicker. Why the hell are people fighting for more of that? Everybody in the U.S. has access to emergency care, so nobody is ever left out in the street to die because they have no medical insurance–nobody.

Do not fool yourself into thinking that the current health care debates are about that. Nobody gets turned away from crisis care. No, what some people and politicians are so desperately fighting for is for medical care to continue as the predominant form of “health care”, beyond crisis care, in illness or in health.

And the medical industry sits well in the paradigm it has created, with many people never really thinking about their health until it goes awry.

It’s the I-can-neglect-my-health-and-then-be-saved-by-medical-care syndrome; the “just give me the statins, it’s too hard to change my lifestyle” mentality; the “I just can’t get myself to exercise and change my diet, so I think I’ll get a stomach staple” way of thinking, just perfect for the elective-c-section,-run-to the-doctor-for-every-sniffle,-and-undergo-multiple-cosmetic-enhancements crowd.

Yes, today’s medical care has very little to do with health–it’s the sickness paradigm imposed onto the public perceptions of health. And you wonder why the U.S. ranks so poorly in health status for a developed nation that spends a large portion of its economy of medical care? Duh.

No, medical care ain’t health care–it’s sick care. And it’s foolish to so adamantly demand it as an inalienable right. You want the drug addiction and the poor health that comes along with the reliance on modern medicine and it’s prehistoric “health” paradigm? Then be my guest. But not me…I’ll take my chances taking care of my health. And if I have a crisis, well I know the best place to go, insurance or not.

Cancer Cut by Intense Exercise

By On · Add Comment · In cancer, exercise, health care costs, health care reform
Put this in your socialized health care pipe and smoke it–men who do heart-pounding exercises regularly are less likely to develop cancer. Yeah, you got it: more exercise, less cancer; less cancer, less cost. Quick, call your congressman–get health club memberships subsidized. Uh…dream on.

Nobody yet is pushing real health care reform, one where actual health enhancement finds its place in a national bill. Why not, you may ask? Because it’s a political and money game being sold to the public as concern for the greater good. Sure it’s about people…suuuuurrre!!! That’s why all the big money players are positioning themselves like never before. Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, AMA–all former opponents to universal health care are now on board hoping to get it all into place. Think there’s some money to be made?

I wouldn’t be against this whole sham if I didn’t know that it isn’t going to change a thing that’s worthwhile. Same old medicine, same old s@$#. Findings like the one in the title of this post get a quick mention and then back to, “how can we sell more drugs, surgeries, procedures, politics, bull turds…?”

Here’s how: The latest findings came from a study out of Finland that looked at more than 2,500 men and their exercise habits for one full year. They followed up with the same men sixteen years later. They found that the men who exercised the most–not sissy exercising, either; intense exercise, stuff that made them sweat–were half as likely to develop cancer than the men that exercised the least. The researchers attributed the lower cancer rates to an increase in oxygen consumption. The cancers most reduced were of the stomach or intestines, lungs, prostate and brain.

I find this study very exciting. To me it makes real sense as to where our focus should be. But guess what: I’M ALONE! Nobody, and I mean nobody (OK, besides former Health and Human Services Secretarial Nominee, Tom Daschle) is looking at this information and realizing where health care needs to go to become “affordable”. The big sham is thinking that if we all pick up the tab for those who choose to not exercise, not lose weight, not get off heavy duty drugs (both pharmaceutical and recreational), not moderate their alcohol intake, not eat well, not get chiropractic care, not fix their relatively minor physical problems before they become major ones, and so forth, then everything will be alright–and cheaper in the long run. What a frickin’ joke.

People Spend Where They Value

By On · Add Comment · In health care costs, universal health care

What do you like to spend your money on? Movies? Clothes? Your hair? Beer? Although at times money may be tight–we always seem to find the dough for what we need. Did you know I used to smoke cigarettes? There were times I was dirt poor, not a piece of bread in my cupboard; but I always had smokes…always.

That’s why I scoff at reports which state that people hold back from health care because of cost. A recent survey claims that 20% of Americans delayed or postponed medical care, mostly doctor visits, because of cost. These surveys are used as fodder for ideologues trying to push an agenda. So of course this latest Thomson Reuters poll, and the many number of polls like it, are simply ammo for the solely political issue of universal health care that is being pushed onto us now.

You know as well as I do that these same people holding off on medical care for financial reasons are going to the movies, roasting at Coachella, drinking at the pub, getting their $750 Jonathin Antin haircuts, and so forth; and they are spending their money for those things because they value them–that is, they get something for their money. Health care often is of subtle value, especially if there is no immediate problem. So, yeah, people will forgo those routine physicals, where you go through the discomfort of a digital probe simply to be told, “Rectum of a twenty-year-old,” because, well, they seem pointless.

I believe this happens because, as I said, health care often has subtle benefits. Unlike an auto problem, for which most people will fork out the cash, no questions asked, opting out of a routine office visit at the doctors won’t strand you on the side of the road.

Now, obviously, neglecting health in this way is foolish. That’s true whether we are talking about passing on a chiropractic wellness visit, a gym membership, or dietary supplements, simply because you gotta stretch the dough and the health regimen just doesn’t fit in this month (and you’ve got to budget as you’re seeing Jonathan next week). It just comes down to what you value.

I’m not judging peoples’ values here; we value what we value. But I don’t care for this political sleight of hand–using ambiguous data to support an agenda. Yes, the recent data collected in the Thomson Reuters poll is ambiguous. Without knowing where else these same people are spending their money, we can’t make any serious conclusions about the prohibitive costs of health care.

Politics of Smoking

By On · Add Comment · In cigarettes, death, health care costs, quality of life, smokers
What costs society more, smokers or non-smokers? Think hard because I’m sure you think you know, but you’ll be surprised when you hear the answer. Very good, you guessed right: Non-smokers ultimately cost society more for one simple reason–they live longer!

New research conducted at Vanderbilt University, on the heels of yet another tax increase on tobacco products, shows unequivocally that every pack of cigarettes smoked saves the country 32 cents. That’s right, smokers actually save this country money. Although smokers cost $96 billion a year in direct health care costs and an additional $97 billion a year in lost productivity, they die sooner than non-smokers by about ten years. That additional ten years of life would cost more in general living expenses and further health care costs (Dutch researchers showed last year that smokers cost $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people). So why the witch hunt? Well let’s check it out.

What’s the tenor we live by? Life is good, death is bad; avoid death at all costs, right? Truth is that most people don’t want to think about death at all. But let’s not forget about the benefits: Death allows space and resources for new life forms. It maintains the constancy of energy flow. So why do we strive so earnestly to preserve individual life above all else?

Here’s my point: It seems that the goal of modern health care is to maintain life at all costs. Noble, yes, but not necessarily advantageous to humanity as a whole. It also forces us to vilify certain behaviors, certain indulgences–like smoking or obesity or promiscuous sex–that just don’t fit into the “we must live as long as we can” theme.

But I personally appreciate quality of life greatly. Now in that vein, I think smoking can be a detriment to having a quality life–that is, if you value being active, then you probably don’t want to smoke. I speak from experience on this–I smoked cigarettes for twenty years and my life is tremendously better now as a non-smoker for a multitude of reasons. However, I do admit that there were loads of benefits to smoking: it was something I enjoyed immensely to say the least (I talk at length about this in my book, The Six Keys To Optimal Health). So which is more important? I guess every individual needs to decide for himself; but either way, I’ll go with quality of life over quantity anytime.

That’s why I laugh when I see studies like the one above. It goes to show you that some things just aren’t what they seem; and thank goodness for people who actually take the time to think about them in their entirety. I’ll leave you with this: There are many benefits to not smoking, to being physically fit, and to caring for one’s health, no doubt–it definitely is the life I love to live. Saying that, however, there are also benefits to smoking, eating whatever you want, and focusing on things other than health. It’s your call. But don’t let ’em tell you it costs society more–that’s a political game.

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.