and our responsibility is...

Andrew Weil put up a great article on Huffington Post that should make all of us stop and give some thought: [The Wrong Diagnosis].

Weil's premise is that the analysis of the health care problem is wrong. What the government is currently proposing won't fix it. What the 'other' side is throwing up as a barrier to it also won't help.

Please read Weil's article. He is known for being a naturopathic doctor, but he is a real doctor who came to believe that traditional medicine wasn't solving all the problem. In fact, regular medicine wasn't even addressing the problem.

Oregon's health care plan for the poor ran into this problem in 2008. Basically it's that a poor woman (she isn't the only one but is the most well-known story) was denied treatment for her lung cancer based on assumption it could only extend her dying and not cure her, and instead offered a prescription for end of life. Mean Oregon! Heartless Oregon with its evil right to death with dignity law.

Of course, these accusations were coming from the bunch who want to deny any such insurance to anybody who can't buy it. Logic though wasn't coming into play as the right said this will happen to everyone. Let me see, so instead of having government insurance and being able to appeal the decision, she would have nothing and that would have been better?

Farm Boss heard the story on the radio. When I went digging for more information, all I could find were right wing sites expressing outrage at the poor lady's situation. Despite their only wanting to use this to prove we should have no government insurance (how exactly that would help her is beyond me), the situation does bring up an important point in this debate.

The most expensive treatment in medicine is end of life. IF a patient wants to extend their dying by 6 months or even less, the government (in this case the state of Oregon) should pay for their desire? Is health care to be about extending dying or living?

The thing is what he heard on the radio was that the lady in question had not quit smoking. I saw no such information on any online articles. But it does give us the issue--what if she hadn't? Should the state still continue to pay for this expensive drug? She thinks so: and her doctor thinks so .

The problem is that health care is rising in cost at an astronomical rate. There are some assumptions that not so many years in the future, it will cost half of a working families' income (that's if we do nothing and stay with the status quo).

If there is no recognition that we might be causing some of our own problems, if there is no responsibility for us to act upon that, then the costs can only go up-- or there will be rationing because at some point nobody can really afford those kind of costs.

What if she had been denied this state of the art treatment because she still smoked? Would the far right draw a line in the sand or still say she should get that treatment ($4000 a month for the pills) instead of say a small child get inoculations? Oh wait, the anti-government health care bunch wouldn't have given her any of this to begin thereby solving that problem.

In the case of this lady, her doctor wrote the company that made the drug and they gave it to her for a year with the right to renew her application at the end of that time. The argument he made, and it's a good one is maybe this wouldn't just extend her dying but save her life. He argued that medicine moves fast in its ability to treat such cancers. I couldn't find anything about her current situation or the prognosis, nor whether she finally did quit smoking.

Here is the problem from health care reform. How do we deal with people who are bringing on their own misery through lifestyle choices. There was a time if I had visited a doctor, he'd have said to me-- you need to lose weight-- because I do need to lose weight. Today a doctor is afraid to say that for fear of being sued and yet it's just as true today except we want to hold patients unaccountable for doing anything for themselves. Some of us can still realize we need to lose weight but others figure if the doctor didn't say it, they don't need to do it.

Coincidentally in Huffington was this other article which relates to something I believe and to what Dr. Weil was saying: [8 Ways to Read your Body's Warning Signs for Health].

This is not saying don't go to the doctor at all, but rather to look to your own body and wisdom also. There are some symptoms that require immediate visits to a clinic but how many visits are not that kind? Are there things we can and should be doing instead of reaching for the magic pill or a surgical solution?

I totally relate to the desire to not have to change my ways when I like how they have been but aren't liking the current results. It's a tough thing and the older I get the less I can escape consequences. When I don't exercise enough or do the right kind of exercise, my knees rebel. I noticed it's harder to lift straight off the ground without feeling rebellion in those knees. Whose fault is that? Can medical science address what I won't? Maybe it can but should it?

There is no way I think people should never visit doctors. I believe there are genetic factors that impact health as well as lifestyle choices. Sometimes it's an environmental thing we cannot fix.. I don't believe every problem can be solved by positive thinking, correct breathing, the right exercise and diet, but shouldn't we be responsible for doing what we do know?

Right now it's the insurance companies we are paying, but that means we all pay for people who live reckless lives. We pay through our insurance premiums and through our taxes whether it's insured or uninsured.

Nobody likes to hear talk of the health police but will that have to be part of a health care solution that won't bankrupt us all? What I wonder is how did we, as a culture, go so far off base on our health habits?