The one we are most familiar with is actually "DiseaseManagement" -- where you go to the doctor with a complaint or your doctor finds a problem and, in most cases, he prescribes a pill. The pill typically does nothing to resolve the problem. But it does suppress the symptoms of the problem (so in the medical mind, they fixed the problem). (Blood pressure pills are a prime example)
The other approach is actual healthcare where health is promoted and maintained. Dean Ornish may be the best proponent of that approach as he advocates a healthy lifestyle that includes a healthy diet, daily exercise, stress reduction along with human love and connection. He has shown that that lifestyle can not only prevent but even reverse heart disease, many cancers, Type 2 diabetes and is currently running a study that may show that it can prevent and reverse Alzheimers. His program is no longer alternative medicine or anything far out as Medicare and many insurance programs now pay for it because it has been proven to work.
It is estimated that 80% of the $17Trillion Americans spend on health care each year is spent on chronic diseases and that this lifestyle approach can prevent 80% of those chronic diseases. Which is maybe why those receiving that $17Trillion have never been thrilled by the lifestyle approach.
So, while the American medical system gives lip service to lifestyle medicine it typically then ignores it in favor of traditional medical pills and procedures (which is where the money is). Apple has come closer than most to promoting those healthy lifestyles but still seems to be firmly rooted in the traditional medical establishment. That may be good because, in that business, traditional medicine calls the shots and any who challenge it tend to run into a buzz saw.
I expect that the biggest obstacle to shifting to your preferred healthcare model is that it would be seen by at least 40% of the US population as a gross infringement of their freedom and worth taking up arms against. It's also probably a major component of the pedophile conspiracy's plan to takeover the country.
The other approach is actual healthcare where health is promoted and maintained. Dean Ornish may be the best proponent of that approach as he advocates a healthy lifestyle that includes a healthy diet, daily exercise, stress reduction along with human love and connection. He has shown that that lifestyle can not only prevent but even reverse heart disease, many cancers, Type 2 diabetes and is currently running a study that may show that it can prevent and reverse Alzheimers. His program is no longer alternative medicine or anything far out as Medicare and many insurance programs now pay for it because it has been proven to work.
Leaving aside the article about specific diet related arguments, Do you think Dean Ornish is wrong on the larger topic, that lifestyle changes can prevent diseases?
I like Dr. Ornish, I've listened to his show for many years, and his basic medical philosophy is sound and accessible. But I would advise people to view skeptically any high rates of cure resulting from lifestyle modification or diet--some may be accurate, some pure wishful thinking or BS, a la Dr. Oz. Many disease states are genetic in origin, or resulting from viruses, bacteria, bad luck or a combination. Take Crohn's disease, which seems to have both environmental and genetic causation, for instance. Too often the debate shifts to a "if you're sick it's your own fault" victim-blaming mode, even if only implied. Ain't necessarily so.
By all means, move that body and eat in moderation, and enjoy your life.
The other approach is actual healthcare where health is promoted and maintained. Dean Ornish may be the best proponent of that approach as he advocates a healthy lifestyle that includes a healthy diet, daily exercise, stress reduction along with human love and connection. He has shown that that lifestyle can not only prevent but even reverse heart disease, many cancers, Type 2 diabetes and is currently running a study that may show that it can prevent and reverse Alzheimers. His program is no longer alternative medicine or anything far out as Medicare and many insurance programs now pay for it because it has been proven to work.
Leaving aside the article about specific diet related arguments, Do you think Dean Ornish is wrong on the larger topic, that lifestyle changes can prevent diseases?
He's not wrong. The data is on his side: in his original study, an 80% reduction in heart disease. It was convincing enough that Medicare and private insurers now pay for his plan.
But Ornish has never advocated diet only strategies. He's been consistent on insisting on diet with exercise, stress reduction and human connection. And, that's consistent with what they typically found in the Blue Zones with the world's healthiest, longest lived peoples.
The other approach is actual healthcare where health is promoted and maintained. Dean Ornish may be the best proponent of that approach as he advocates a healthy lifestyle that includes a healthy diet, daily exercise, stress reduction along with human love and connection. He has shown that that lifestyle can not only prevent but even reverse heart disease, many cancers, Type 2 diabetes and is currently running a study that may show that it can prevent and reverse Alzheimers. His program is no longer alternative medicine or anything far out as Medicare and many insurance programs now pay for it because it has been proven to work.
Interesting back & forth. I agree w/ SA that Ornish incorrectly conflates high-protein w/ high-fat, when they're actually two different macro nutrients. I and many other weight lifters & bodybuilders eat high-protein but low-fat diets. This is not difficult to do, as you can supplement dietary protein with low-fat whey and even plant-based options like pea-protein. It is true that many Americans simply eat animal fats (usually meat, often dressed in mayos and breadings) to get both protein and fat, but they are not the same and it is misleading to claim high-protein is responsible for obesity or heart disease. As a macro nutrient, that just isn't protein's lane by itself. More, increased protein is useful for building muscle and negating or slowing down sarcopenia (muscle atrophy), which keeps us more functional longer in life and helps compress mortality to the very end of life.
The other approach is actual healthcare where health is promoted and maintained. Dean Ornish may be the best proponent of that approach as he advocates a healthy lifestyle that includes a healthy diet, daily exercise, stress reduction along with human love and connection. He has shown that that lifestyle can not only prevent but even reverse heart disease, many cancers, Type 2 diabetes and is currently running a study that may show that it can prevent and reverse Alzheimers. His program is no longer alternative medicine or anything far out as Medicare and many insurance programs now pay for it because it has been proven to work.
Leaving aside the article about specific diet related arguments, Do you think Dean Ornish is wrong on the larger topic, that lifestyle changes can prevent diseases?
Definitely not wrong there. Generally speaking, lifestyle is health.
Arnold disagrees with your take on protein building muscle.
And, it makes sense: protein doesn't build muscle anymore than bricks build walls. In both cases, they are merely ingredients in the process. Just as the brick layer uses the bricks he needs and discards the rest, the body uses the protein it needs and disgards the rest. Consuming excess protein doesn't build excess muscle -- it just gives the kidneys more work to do.
But you are correct on Ornish generalizing about most westerners consuming diets high in both animal proteins and animal fats. There are ways to separate the two.
The one we are most familiar with is actually "DiseaseManagement" -- where you go to the doctor with a complaint or your doctor finds a problem and, in most cases, he prescribes a pill. The pill typically does nothing to resolve the problem. But it does suppress the symptoms of the problem (so in the medical mind, they fixed the problem). (Blood pressure pills are a prime example)
The other approach is actual healthcare where health is promoted and maintained. Dean Ornish may be the best proponent of that approach as he advocates a healthy lifestyle that includes a healthy diet, daily exercise, stress reduction along with human love and connection. He has shown that that lifestyle can not only prevent but even reverse heart disease, many cancers, Type 2 diabetes and is currently running a study that may show that it can prevent and reverse Alzheimers. His program is no longer alternative medicine or anything far out as Medicare and many insurance programs now pay for it because it has been proven to work.
It is estimated that 80% of the $17Trillion Americans spend on health care each year is spent on chronic diseases and that this lifestyle approach can prevent 80% of those chronic diseases. Which is maybe why those receiving that $17Trillion have never been thrilled by the lifestyle approach.
So, while the American medical system gives lip service to lifestyle medicine it typically then ignores it in favor of traditional medical pills and procedures (which is where the money is). Apple has come closer than most to promoting those healthy lifestyles but still seems to be firmly rooted in the traditional medical establishment. That may be good because, in that business, traditional medicine calls the shots and any who challenge it tend to run into a buzz saw.
I expect that the biggest obstacle to shifting to your preferred healthcare model is that it would be seen by at least 40% of the US population as a gross infringement of their freedom and worth taking up arms against. It's also probably a major component of the pedophile conspiracy's plan to takeover the country.
Qanonsense or satire? Impossible to say.
It’s too bad that one knows it’s satire and the other believes the satire is true.
big tech also taking over medical centers, great! what do medical center owners need to do about this?
Define "taking over medical centers" please.
Are you suggesting big insurance and big hospital have been delivering a better value to consumers and patients? I sure don't think so. In fact, America pays more of its GDP toward its private healthcare system and receives less for it than the rest of the west. This is fact. We pay more, but get less. In the middle of that equation, billions of profit goes to insurance companies and the executive class of care providers. They are unnecessary middle men. I'd prefer they be eliminated and we get more for our money -- even if that means shifting the deductions from payroll (employer-provided benefits we pay for) to socialized medicine that we don't pay directly out of pocket for.
There are some rough estimates for levels of taxation used for national healthcare insurance here, it would be a few thousand off an average salary but little to no additional costs regardless of how much treatment is needed so it works out cheaper overall and no unexpected bills:
A big part of the problem with private healthcare is controlling costs - salaries of doctors, surgeons and medicine. Because surgeons/anaesthetists can make $100-400k/year, it makes the costs of operations extremely high for individuals covering the entire cost. When private companies control the price of medicine, this is the outcome:
It's a pretty sick society that sits idly by while big corporations allow people's children to die to satisfy their greed and all politicians concern themselves with is in-app purchases costing $1 more than expected or a company deleting some tweets. They need to sort their priorities.
Some of the costs posted on the following page are hard to believe, especially the cases of people with depression, being charged thousands for treatment and this pushing them over the edge:
Some of the higher bills were for extended stay in hospitals. It's insane that a few weeks in a hospital can bankrupt people.
Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JP Morgan Chase tried to fix this but according to the following site, the consolidation in the industry prevented them from being able to lower the costs:
Although preventative measures can help reduce healthcare costs in some places, it doesn't do anything to fix these issues. People will still have accidents, give birth, get acute infections etc and be met with these high costs.
A healthcare system that profits from more people being sick longer and insurance companies profiting more from denying health coverage isn't fit for purpose. The only way healthcare works well is when governments becomes a full on competitor to private insurers because it distributes the costs across the entire population and takes some control over pricing.
Once a government does that, they can partner with tech companies like Apple and Amazon to help reduce costs through preventative care and improved logistics.
Love all these little chats about the secret of good healthcare.
however, this is actually about whether or not Apple should become a healthcare provider. I don’t think it should, and am glad it didn’t. provide the tools for healthcare providers, sure. But extend its business into healthcare, no.
What’s next, buy out a medium sized GDP country and run it? Come to think about it, it could solve some of those pinickity tax problems.😁
big tech also taking over medical centers, great! what do medical center owners need to do about this?
Define "taking over medical centers" please.
Are you suggesting big insurance and big hospital have been delivering a better value to consumers and patients? I sure don't think so. In fact, America pays more of its GDP toward its private healthcare system and receives less for it than the rest of the west. This is fact. We pay more, but get less. In the middle of that equation, billions of profit goes to insurance companies and the executive class of care providers. They are unnecessary middle men. I'd prefer they be eliminated and we get more for our money -- even if that means shifting the deductions from payroll (employer-provided benefits we pay for) to socialized medicine that we don't pay directly out of pocket for.
There are some rough estimates for levels of taxation used for national healthcare insurance here, it would be a few thousand off an average salary but little to no additional costs regardless of how much treatment is needed so it works out cheaper overall and no unexpected bills:
A big part of the problem with private healthcare is controlling costs - salaries of doctors, surgeons and medicine. Because surgeons/anaesthetists can make $100-400k/year, it makes the costs of operations extremely high for individuals covering the entire cost. When private companies control the price of medicine, this is the outcome:
It's a pretty sick society that sits idly by while big corporations allow people's children to die to satisfy their greed and all politicians concern themselves with is in-app purchases costing $1 more than expected or a company deleting some tweets. They need to sort their priorities.
Some of the costs posted on the following page are hard to believe, especially the cases of people with depression, being charged thousands for treatment and this pushing them over the edge:
Some of the higher bills were for extended stay in hospitals. It's insane that a few weeks in a hospital can bankrupt people.
Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JP Morgan Chase tried to fix this but according to the following site, the consolidation in the industry prevented them from being able to lower the costs:
Although preventative measures can help reduce healthcare costs in some places, it doesn't do anything to fix these issues. People will still have accidents, give birth, get acute infections etc and be met with these high costs.
A healthcare system that profits from more people being sick longer and insurance companies profiting more from denying health coverage isn't fit for purpose. The only way healthcare works well is when governments becomes a full on competitor to private insurers because it distributes the costs across the entire population and takes some control over pricing.
Once a government does that, they can partner with tech companies like Apple and Amazon to help reduce costs through preventative care and improved logistics.
Well said!
In a word, why would a for-profit system do anything but increase its own profits?
In a capitalist society the only real control of the capitalists is competition. But the American health care system has eliminated that competition by removing care and control of costs from the person incurring them. (The woman in that video should be able to buy her medicines from any country in the world. But here that is against the law. So she is forced to pay system or let her child die)
People blame doctors. But in most cases those doctors are employees doing what their employer tells them to do: Increase revenue. And, the whole system from the ground up is built on that principle: Physicians are not trained in the lifestyle medicines that can not only improve health and lower costs. Instead they are trained in how to deliver pills and procedures. They are steeped in it. They are indoctrinated into that system. I know, I went through that indoctrination (not as a physician but as a nurse)
The virus has had one benefit: it planted the seed that could bring down large sections of that machine with "tele health". Physically at this point large sections of health care could be administered by physicians thousands of miles away. A physician in Thailand could diagnose that child, prescribe its medicines and ship them from Inida -- all at, say, 1/10th the cost (or less) of the American system. But right now that is illegal. How long will the American people tolerate it?
The article's title is awkward at best, misleading at worst. It seems like you're saying Apple fired the doctor they have that's running the show. And you're saying it in a rather dehumanizing way.
There was no way this was a real thing. Apple was not going to get into the front line of healthcare services. Nonsensical, IMO.
What needs to be re-invented are healthcare records - security, portability, controlled access, communications, etc. Which is what they are building with the Health app and provider integration. And, health and wellness monitoring via AW, Fitness and future other devices,/services to inform users and feed back to healthcare providers should the user wish.
Whatever they are doing, it is quite likely to better help model and understand the workings and needs of interrelated health services...
Love all these little chats about the secret of good healthcare.
however, this is actually about whether or not Apple should become a healthcare provider. I don’t think it should, and am glad it didn’t. provide the tools for healthcare providers, sure. But extend its business into healthcare, no.
What’s next, buy out a medium sized GDP country and run it? Come to think about it, it could solve some of those pinickity tax problems.😁
I’m sure Tim Cook will breathe a sigh of relief that he didn’t disappoint you.
There was no way this was a real thing. Apple was not going to get into the front line of healthcare services. Nonsensical, IMO.
“IMO”, yet we have an article in the WSJ with sources and documents that say this was a real thing. Who should we believe? FTFA:
The team decided one of the best ways to realize that vision was to provide a medical service of its own, said people familiar with the plan, linking data generated by Apple devices with virtual and in-person care provided by Apple doctors. Apple would offer primary care, but also continuous health monitoring as part of a subscription-based personalized health program, according to these people and the documents.
Apple needs to make this happen as Apple is more private than clinics and won’t share data and seems to care about our health more.
The fear of shared health data stems from the fact US insurance companies use the information to cut or cancel coverage for their own profit. However, absent this almost uniquely American evil, shared health data is crucial. Different departments, different doctors, and specialists can best assess your health when they all can access a common database or a relational one, and with AI coming this becomes even more vital. We need a paradigm shift.
Sure it’s fine if my doctor knows all my Watch and Health stats. But the example you used about insurance companies is just one of many reasons why it should be contained.
We do need a paradigm shift and it’s not gonna happen with the current health companies.
There was no way this was a real thing. Apple was not going to get into the front line of healthcare services. Nonsensical, IMO.
What needs to be re-invented are healthcare records - security, portability, controlled access, communications, etc. Which is what they are building with the Health app and provider integration. And, health and wellness monitoring via AW, Fitness and future other devices,/services to inform users and feed back to healthcare providers should the user wish.
Whatever they are doing, it is quite likely to better help model and understand the workings and needs of interrelated health services...
Thought it was common knowledge that health was one of the next industries Apple would fix?
There was no way this was a real thing. Apple was not going to get into the front line of healthcare services. Nonsensical, IMO.
What needs to be re-invented are healthcare records - security, portability, controlled access, communications, etc. Which is what they are building with the Health app and provider integration. And, health and wellness monitoring via AW, Fitness and future other devices,/services to inform users and feed back to healthcare providers should the user wish.
Whatever they are doing, it is quite likely to better help model and understand the workings and needs of interrelated health services...
Thought it was common knowledge that health was one of the next industries Apple would fix?
The problems of the American healthcare system are impacting U.S. industry:
As far as I know, the U.S. is the only country that places the bulk of the burden of paying for healthcare on its industries. For them, paying those enormous healthcare premiums is like paying an enormous tax.
Apple is not the only company claiming to be interested in improving things.
And it makes sense: Not only would they be protecting and supporting their own employees but their own P&L statement as well by bringing down those costs.
But too, there is a third incentive out there: This is a $17Trillion industry loaded and laced with waste, abuse and mismanagement. What company wouldn't want a share of that pie? That goes all the way back into the 1980's: As the American Steel industry was dying, my own steel company diverted enormous amounts of cash from modernizing its mills to buying into a drug distribution business! And, today Amazon has injected fear into that same industry by promising to do the same.
big tech also taking over medical centers, great! what do medical center owners need to do about this?
Define "taking over medical centers" please.
Are you suggesting big insurance and big hospital have been delivering a better value to consumers and patients? I sure don't think so. In fact, America pays more of its GDP toward its private healthcare system and receives less for it than the rest of the west. This is fact. We pay more, but get less. In the middle of that equation, billions of profit goes to insurance companies and the executive class of care providers. They are unnecessary middle men. I'd prefer they be eliminated and we get more for our money -- even if that means shifting the deductions from payroll (employer-provided benefits we pay for) to socialized medicine that we don't pay directly out of pocket for.
The article's title is awkward at best, misleading at worst. It seems like you're saying Apple fired the doctor they have that's running the show. And you're saying it in a rather dehumanizing way.
No, “Apple Doctor” is a reference to the platform/product, not the person.
Comments
By all means, move that body and eat in moderation, and enjoy your life.
https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-a-salary-goes-to-National-Health-Contributions-in-the-UK
A big part of the problem with private healthcare is controlling costs - salaries of doctors, surgeons and medicine. Because surgeons/anaesthetists can make $100-400k/year, it makes the costs of operations extremely high for individuals covering the entire cost. When private companies control the price of medicine, this is the outcome:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mother-fights-for-lower-insulin-prices-after-sons-tragic-death/
It's a pretty sick society that sits idly by while big corporations allow people's children to die to satisfy their greed and all politicians concern themselves with is in-app purchases costing $1 more than expected or a company deleting some tweets. They need to sort their priorities.
Some of the costs posted on the following page are hard to believe, especially the cases of people with depression, being charged thousands for treatment and this pushing them over the edge:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/8dt8lf/americans_whats_the_most_expensive_medical_bill/
Some of the higher bills were for extended stay in hospitals. It's insane that a few weeks in a hospital can bankrupt people.
Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JP Morgan Chase tried to fix this but according to the following site, the consolidation in the industry prevented them from being able to lower the costs:
https://hbr.org/2021/01/why-haven-healthcare-failed
Although preventative measures can help reduce healthcare costs in some places, it doesn't do anything to fix these issues. People will still have accidents, give birth, get acute infections etc and be met with these high costs.
A healthcare system that profits from more people being sick longer and insurance companies profiting more from denying health coverage isn't fit for purpose. The only way healthcare works well is when governments becomes a full on competitor to private insurers because it distributes the costs across the entire population and takes some control over pricing.
Once a government does that, they can partner with tech companies like Apple and Amazon to help reduce costs through preventative care and improved logistics.
however, this is actually about whether or not Apple should become a healthcare provider. I don’t think it should, and am glad it didn’t.
provide the tools for healthcare providers, sure. But extend its business into healthcare, no.
What’s next, buy out a medium sized GDP country and run it? Come to think about it, it could solve some of those pinickity tax problems.😁
What needs to be re-invented are healthcare records - security, portability, controlled access, communications, etc. Which is what they are building with the Health app and provider integration. And, health and wellness monitoring via AW, Fitness and future other devices,/services to inform users and feed back to healthcare providers should the user wish.
Whatever they are doing, it is quite likely to better help model and understand the workings and needs of interrelated health services...
We do need a paradigm shift and it’s not gonna happen with the current health companies.