From what I understand, it's a shambles. (that's the short story) But it got me thinking, we in the United Kingdom have a tendency to moan about the NHS (a tax funded institution that supplies free healthcare), but I actually think we are better off. Sure, many NHS employees are miserable people, but that's not because of the system, it's because the government doesn't feel they are being underpaid nor that they are often working ridiculously long hours. Anyway, I digress... So I did some research about the US healthcare system, having been aware of the criticism it has received along with the potential for phenomenal medical bills. In said research, I've discovered that some 40 million Americans have no entitlement to so-called "healthcare insurance". I then got thinking about the other things I've observed, namely that Americans seem more likely to try out alternative medicine and natural remedies (which most of us Brits will laugh at, given that "proper" methods of treatment are readily available should a person push enough and play the waiting game). I do think it's absolutely atrocious that a person should have to rely on quackery and natural remedies for ailments that require professional medical treatment, but I also think that people are being fed propaganda and general bullshit from the American government and the media to sway them from their real entitlements and pile money into snake oil businesses. I've seen plenty of American commercials that promise solutions for all kinds of medical conditions, but aren't anywhere near as effective as proper medical care and treatment. It's true that we have similar commercials, wonder products and snake oil salesmen over here, but with the existence of the NHS, we largely ignore them. I'm not particularly familiar with the more intricate areas of the US healthcare system, so I'd be very interested to hear what other users (particularly those from America and those who are in the minority of non-entitlement to health insurance) have to say on the subject and whether my observations have any truth to them.
Interestingly, the perception I had was quite opposite. I'm somewhat involved in the skeptical movement here, which means I keep pretty up to date on issues of quackery. The perception here seems to be that, while both nations have their issues with non-scientific "medicine," that the problem is actually worse in the UK (and Europe in general) than in the US. For example, homeopathy is generally unheard of (or misperceived as a catch-all term for natural medicine) in America, whereas it is far more common over there. While we have a particularly bad problem with antivaccinationists, I thought that UK suffered from that particular brand of idiocy as well. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that Americans are more likely to seek out alternative treatment? Mind you, I'm not being accusatory, I am genuinely curious. While I agree that our health care system is horrendously fucked up (as a comedian brilliantly put it, "This is a third world problem. Why are we even debating this?"), I doubt that it leads more people to pursue alt med as treatment. The most common recourse for the poor is the Emergency Room: you will get treatment if you go, you'll just be stuck with debt. Quacks charge a shitload of money for their snake oil treatments, I think they do most of their business with the wealthy. I just don't think the two issues are all that related (though I may be wrong). I suspect the reasons we have a problem with quacks are the same here as anywhere: natural human gullibility (and other psychologica phenomena that allow us to believe in unreal things) and poor science education. You guys have the added problem of your libel laws, which are terrible, even with the recent attempts to improve them.
So, you researched this point: But, essentially by your own admission, you didn't objectively research any of these other points: Very doubtful.
I'm not sure, I will say that there are a lot of people here who have reasonably strange ideas how to go about things of a medical nature, such as consuming Yes, very much so. The MMR vaccination caused an incredible uproar and panic when a few "scientists" suggested that the vaccination was linked to the development of autism. It had such a profound effect that despite the findings being denounced by pretty much every respected and accredited medical institution in the world, people are still reluctant to have the vaccine. However, it's only really been focused upon the MMR vaccination. I held off posting this because I felt that people would just dismiss it since it's from 2002, however the American healthcare system has arguably declined from that period and the number of Americans who have no entitlement to health insurance has definitely increased. I did however find this article as well, where a study has found that a worrying number of people with more serious physical health conditions are turning to herbal remedies, particularly those with heart conditions. Surely the concept of being frugal is very much a part of American culture, just as much as it is a part of any culture for anybody living on a median income, this is surely a reason for people resorting to natural remedies? Indeed, but there are also quacks and quack companies out there that mass produce snake oil treatments and make a disgusting amount of profit. This was the area I was looking at when I mentioned the amount of commercials for natural remedies and snake oil treatments that were emerging. Agreed, and many people have been calling for the end of the NHS, although that will surely make things worse for the UK in the long run.
I think it's absolutely atrocious that one should have to "push enough and play the waiting game" in order to get "proper" methods of treatment. If that's true you should do something about it.
In fact a lot of Americans simply are willing to try the range of so-called "alternative" or "natural" remedies - both medications and therapies - despite having ready access to so-called "proper" health care. You don't think all the celebrities who are into this stuff are somehow strapped for cash, do you? It's a combination of a cultural streak of iconoclasm and our utopianism. There are quite a few things that ail folks that - surprise! - are not easily identified or alleviated by traditional medicine (especially pain of various kinds), and we're just not willing to accept that no decent treatment for a problem exists and that we might have to learn to endure it.
I have a condition known as sarcoidosis (of the lungs). It's a condition they really don't know a lot about, but it involves inflamed bronchial passages & lymph nodes. The treatment, as with most lung issues, is corticosteroids, which in my case didn't do anything other than have bad side effects. For the last few years I've been taking Serrapeptase and that works. It's a synthetic replacement for what was originally something made out of the stomachs of silkworms. The idea being that it would remove dead tissue. I don't know about every "natural" remedy, but this one keeps my problem in check.
Yes, I'm very familiar with the story. It was specifically the preservative thimerosal which took the initial brunt of the blame, because of it's mercury content. Of course it's been proved that mercury has no link to autism, but people won't give up their belief in misinformation. Interesting, guess I was wrong. However, I'd still suspect that the vast majority of users of alt med are middle class or wealthy. Wait...what? Have you seen America? Sorry, but this is such a huge misperception as to be hilarious! American culture values money. A lot of an item's judged value is based on it's price -- an "it's expensive, so it must be good!" attitude. It may very well work. The issue with alt med isn't natural remedies -- aspirin is a natural remedy, after all, and it works very well. Most modern medicines are derived from natural sources. Serrapeptase may be very efficient, and that's great -- on this specific drug there's simply no evidence either way. The only evidence for its efficacy consists of anecdotal evidence (which is worthless scientifically), and a handful of poorly controlled animal trials. This doesn't mean that it doesn't work, it just means that it's not been proved to work (or to not work). Your experience could as easily be a result of the placebo effect as it could be a real effect (which is why anecdotal evidence never counts).
My problem is with doctors in general. On the rare occasions I have to go to the doctor, I see the nurse for a few minutes, she takes my vitals and then I explain what's wrong.The doctor comes in and I explain to her again whats wrong, she checks some more stuff and then gives me her recommendations. I've had neck problems because of a car accident years ago and she recommended that I take a bunch of Ibuprofin pills, much more than the recommend amount and said "If it doesn't get better, you'll need neck surgery". No other tests, no nothing, and frankly the Ibuprofin only masks the symptoms and doesn't deal with the underlying issue. The whole visit with the doctor lasted about 10 minutes. That is when I went to the chiropractor (say what you will) and had some physical manipulation of my neck and massages for several months and am fine now. No Ibuprofin and no surgery. I had a similar issue when I wrenched my knee this spring "take a bunch of Ibuprofin until it goes away." Doctors are great for the big things like surgery, cancer, setting broken bones, etc. but the little things I think can and should be handled somewhere else beacuse just masking symptoms only goes so far. I'm starting to think that nutritionists can help with more and more things like cholesterol and blood sugar issues through diet moreso than throwing pills at the problem.
^The problem is turning to non-science based treatment. A nutritionist will be of great help...nutritionists base their practice in science. Your experiences sound to be with a couple of doctors who either A) are crap doctors or B) are working under the pressures of a very badly designed medical system that allows them a very short amount of time with each patient and few options or C) both (this seems the most likely option to me). It is dangerous to use non-science based treatment, and is indicative of a public who on the whole are scientifically illiterate and not well-practiced in critical thinking skills (if not completely devoid of them, in some cases!). Chiropractic is a particularly tough branch of alt med to deal with, because some chiropractors do use science-based medicine while some are complete quacks (and the best way to tell which is by whether their treatment plan is of a limited time frame or whether they want their patients to continue with treatment indefinitely). There was recently a thread about chiropractic in which I posted more thoroughly discussing the two types of chiropractors. Chiropractic as a science-based physical therapy treatment for neck pain makes perfect sense. Chiropractic to treat cancer by eliminating blockages in life energy is stupid.
Agreed, Chiropractic is beneficial in relieving pain and increasing mobility, it is however, only a short term solution. Much like a painkiller I suppose, in that pain can only be permanently prevented when the cause itself is treated. To this end, it makes much more sense to seek treatment from a Physiotherapist, who will get a person on a program of exercise and identify things to avoid that can prevent healing or cause further detriment.
Part of that has to do with maximizing our efficiency and using doctors as data analyzers rather than data collectors. There's nothing really wrong with that, but I understand people feel much more comfortable when they get more time with the doctor.