« prev   random   next »

4
1

Do you care about what will probably kill you?

By curious2 following x   2018 Sep 17, 4:05am 2,165 views   8 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


In the USA, most deaths result from one of the top 3 killers:
1) heart disease
2) cancer
3) iatrogenic (mostly due to medical errors and nosocomial infections)
Each of these causes ~20% of deaths each year.

The latest media rage (gun violence) pales in comparison: fewer than 2% of deaths, and most are suicides. MSM and politicians say comparatively little about things that are more than 10 times more likely to kill you.

In the last 10 years, we have seen every possible combination of major party government at the federal level. We saw a Democratic Congress and a Republican President, a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, a Republican Congress and a Democratic President, and now we have a Republican Congress and a Republican President. Has any of them cured heart disease or cancer? No. Has any of them even reduced medical error and nosocomial infections? Not much. Has any of them even tried? Not really.

Obamneycare increased medical spending and shortened life expectancy.

Research funding is controlled mainly by drug companies trying to increase their own revenues.

Public resources go to enriching favored industries, the usual lobby driven scams. Sometimes a candidate promises to increase public funding for research, but never with any commitment to deliver a result by a specific date.

Would a candidate who campaigned promising to cure heart disease or cancer within one term win? It should be possible with current technology. Why does no one even campaign on that? Why do people shuffle off this mortal coil with such disregard for their own mortality? Are they tired of living? Too distracted by hating Trump or the "liberlas"? Why can't people vote to save their own lives?
1   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 Sep 17, 4:49am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says
3) iatrogenic (medical error and nosocomial infections)

That is pretty high?
2   curious2   ignore (0)   2018 Sep 17, 5:02am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

3   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2018 Sep 17, 7:25am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

"Extend", not "save"
curious2 says
Why can't people vote to save their own lives?
4   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Sep 17, 7:58am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I imagine it’s only getting worse as everyone uses smart phones and tablets now that accumulate bacteria and move wherever the doctors and nurses go to each patient.

You’re right... making this a priority would draw attention to ththe problem and do a lot of good. However, it’s not sexy. People want to believe in the infallibility of doctors, sexy doctors, sexy nurses... and they don’t want to think about all the risks they take when they visit the hospital.
5   HEYYOU   ignore (31)   2018 Sep 17, 10:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

At least polluted air,water,land & food aren't health risks.
Lets all enjoy the spices of hormones,steroids,antibiotics & other chemicals in our next meal.
6   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2018 Sep 17, 12:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

No, no, NO! What's important is if my side is controlling the government, global warming, and guns! Facts are irrelevant in the face of fear-mongering!!!
7   curious2   ignore (0)   2018 Sep 17, 12:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
People want to believe in the infallibility of doctors....


Yes, people cherish that fantasy, and doctors and nurses play up the part of bedside manner and the appearance of erudition and compassion. Many do mean well, but the actual practice tends to align with the financial incentives and institutional inertia, doing what is most lucrative rather than what works best.

BTW, a cautionary example from inside a hospital corporation in Chicago: a group of idealistic doctors and nurses organized to reduce nosocomial infections; their initiative worked so well that many ended up getting laid off, because without the infections, the hospital didn't need so many doctors and nurses. Hospital corporations maximize ROI.

BlueSardine says
"Extend", not "save"
curious2 says
Why can't people vote to save their own lives?


That is a good point, but then why can't they vote to extend their own lives? Are they so wretched that they look forward to their demise and don't want to prolong their misery? If that is true, then why do they seek out or vote for medical programs at all? And why wait, instead of checking out early? And what is the difference between suicide and diverting resources from medical research into sectors that simply waste the money? I suspect that as Petrodollar hypnosis drives the suicidal decision to import Islam, medical industrial complex hypnosis drives the suicidal decision to forgo medical research and spend instead on toxic placebos.
8   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Sep 17, 1:27pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says
Are they so wretched that they look forward to their demise and don't want to prolong their misery


From what I’ve seen in my daily life, yes. People generally don’t appreciate what they have. As Jordan Peterson says, consciousness can be a terrible burden to bear without a sense of purpose. And for many if not most, the stream of purpose runs very shallow. Addiction and escapes are how people cope. And if that purpose dries up, they add to the growing endpoint of suicide.

Without a vision the people perish.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions