Diluted Health Care

The Current System Could Bankrupt the U.S. Gov't
Although Medicaid, Medicare, and other health care services remain among the largest annual U.S. government expenditures, according to CBS News (July 2009) those services are failing to provide adequate coverage for 25,000,000 Americans and provide no coverage at all for over 47,000,000 more Americans who need it. So where is all the money going? According to CBS weekly news magazine 60 Minutes (Nov 2009), "$50 billion of it is spent annually on those terminally ill in their final two months of life as cost cannot be considered as a factor when determining what services will be administered." That policy is recklessly saying 'money is no object' when in fact, it is. We must rethink where, when, why, and how we use 'life sustaining technology' as we are heading to a point where most anyone could be kept 'alive' indefinitely. The twenty-five tests and four surgical procedures (at a cost of ~$350,000) for one terminally ill person are not primarily being done to "save" anyone. The hard truth is (elderly) terminally ill persons can be seen as cash cows for those who perform the moot tests and procedures. In all fairness to the practitioners, in many cases, they have no choice but to provide the services. The $50B is but one example of funds that should be better utilized.

NOTE: According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the U.S. is projected to spend over $2.5 trillion on health care in 2009, or $8,160 per U.S. resident. Health spending in 2009 is projected to account for 17.6% of GDP. In 1970, U.S. health care spending was about $75 billion, or $356 per resident, and accounted for 7.2% of GDP. CMS projects that by 2018, health care spending will be over $4.3 trillion, or $13,100 per resident, and account for 20.3% of GDP.

Who Is Actually Getting the Annual $50B?
The current system is set up to reward the health-care facilities, their suppliers, and the people who work for those facilities each of whom are enjoying a steady flow of income. Income the U.S. government is paying virtually unchecked.

No Good Reason to Die in Torment
The world economy is forcing "natural" changes in fiscal decisions. Philosophically, that will be difficult for many to swallow, but there simply is no viable choice other than to accept those changes. I am politely postulating that we can no longer reward bad behavior with endless health benefits. We have now seen the end result of the bad nutrition and physical activity choices and must alter our culture accordingly. There is a way to pass away "naturally" without undergoing hundreds of thousands of dollars in pointless test and surgical procedures. No, I'm not recommending we begin production of Soylent Green to help the economy. The following excerpt from amalux.com offers perspective:

"Although it is rarely mentioned in the context of good health; death is a fact of life. Dieing naturally is highly under rated. When death inevitably comes to a healthy person as a result of old age, it comes without torment – peacefully and painlessly. This too, is no longer the case in the general population. Most people die in a state of torment.”

Meaning, if we follow the Holistics 2050 Premise (or other like programs) and take care of ourselves, we wouldn't be dying of septic shock on an operating table after having 80% of our colon carved out or after our liver is running on one cylinder because of decades of improper nutrition, no gland cleansing, and inadequate activity. There's no denying some persons find themselves in dire straights through no fault of their own. I'm referring to the avoidable cases knowing there's always an exception to most any rule. Lets focus on the over-arching situation here and what needs to be done to correct it. Each one of us can help each other by taking MUCH better care of ourselves THROUGHOUT our lifetime. Again referring to the 60 Minutes segment, "75% of people die in a hospital or nursing home while most of them would prefer to pass away at home."

Where Do We Draw the Line?
If you're asking yourself why we don't carve into the $50B being spent on putting $40,000 devices in 95 year old patients knowing the patient will likely not survive the next month and instead invest the money in an 8 year old who has as serious complications, you are not alone. The question becomes, not "do" we draw the line, but "where" do we draw the line?

Why Not Focus on Prevention?
How many times a day do we hear the phrase on television, "Ask your doctor about" ... a certain pill? Those advertisements are encouraging trips to the doctor and promoting the use of prescription drugs knowing the insurance companies will pay the bill. Eventually, the pills stop working and that's when the U.S. government is often writing checks for more intrusive surgical procedures. So, the pills are merely a profit mechanism for those who push them that only serve to delay the inevitable collapse of an internal organ or two. My point is we should be promoting 'prevention-type' campaigns such as the Holistics 2050 Premise where the goal is to attain a level of health to where doctor visits are for check-ups not fill-ups.

What Now?
We can change things in our immediate control such as our diets and activity levels. That change alone will eventually stop the bleeding (figuratively and literally) in a decade or so. It could be 2050 until the problems seen in 2009 are truly behind us. Yes, that's one of the things I thought about when naming Holistics 2050. Clearly the systemic problems are so severe we may have to resort to legislation to help address them. We don't have the luxury of waiting this out for decades. So, if we enact laws that spend the $50B with much more oversight and discretion (meaning we may not spend it at all), be prepared to see those with the financial means get services while others don't. If that's not a good enough answer, ensure the legislation provides a sensible alternative for those less able to pay. The scope of this writing is to strongly recommend PREVENTION to those who are not too far gone already. I admit this is a terribly complacent statement, but I remain hopeful the right persons are looking at this and will make good decisions for all of us.

It's easy for people like myself to provide commentary on the as-is and propose possible solutions. The real and much more important work is finding and implementing solutions best for everyone. The primary purpose of this writing is to stir debate and get closer to such a solution.