Shoring-Up ObamaCare is NOT Going to Help - Lobby Groups Are Disgusting.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I would prefer that no one should suffer or die if medical science can prevent it. No matter how much some may think differently.

a reply to: Phage

Its not your burden to know when someone is to die. Medical science is not very good at keeping people healthy.

originally posted by: CarlsBad
a reply to: carewemust

that's why the website has a medicaid search filter right?

ZocDoc can have all the filters it wants. GOOD doctors who accept Medicaid, don't advertise there. They want to maintain a strict limit on the number of Medicaid patients seen. It's usually through word-of-mouth.

Since this thread has veered way off course, I'm bowing out until tomorrow. Happy dreams!

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Should I have died 30 years ago?
My daughter might have an opinion. Yours however doesn't concern me.

a reply to: carewemust

It would be nice if my county had every imaginable service too.

It takes 10 full minutes to traverse Kane County. There are 7 within 20 minutes of it's center that accept Medicaid.

Hint: Did you see how many total Gynecologist are in Kane County? Few. Insurance isn't the issue...

a reply to: Phage

What would your life saving procedure cost you today? I'm not against medical attention, but our current system is not in anyway sustainable. I don't think you realize how bad it is.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

What would your life saving procedure have cost you today.

More than I could pay. A lot more.
Hmm. Thirty years ago it was more than I could have paid too.

It took a team of people to save my life. I do not begrudge the expense. I am grateful that my insurance could reimburse the doctors, nurses, technicians, and hospital (machines) which allowed me to survive (and father a daughter).

Have things changed since then? Yes, yes indeed. Is it more expensive now? Yes, yes it is. But then, the technology has improved substantially, has it not? Do you think that the development of that technology has no cost?

a reply to: Phage

Sure, there are new, more efficient procedures (some which the FDA refuses to approve), but are they covered, are they less expensive? Are the copays even affordable? In many cases, no.

You had your procedure when the getting was still kind of good. It is unlikely that my generation will have that same luxury.

The free market is the only lasting solution. The transition must be made at some point. The medical crash is coming whether you like it or not, whether you are prepared to accept it or not. We had the opportunity to make a smoother transition into free market, and we turned that down for a loud mouth orange gremlin. So I'm sorry, America is going to learn the hard way. One day that bubble is going to pop and no one will be prepared.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Sure, there are new, more efficient procedures (some which the FDA refuses to approve), but are they covered, are they less expensive?

The free market is the only lasting solution.

A "free market" would not begin to cover the costs of R & D. Do you think that doesn't cost anything?
You know, capitalism and stuff. Oh wait, is capitalism bad now?

a reply to: Phage

That's because R&D is over burdened with regulation. You can thank the FDA for that. And most new R&D is finding that the majority of our cardio vascular, metabolic, hormonal, autoimmune, and cancer problems come from our low-fat, high-carb, high-sugar diets. The rest comes from food processing, pesticides, and vitamin deficiency. Our diets even have power to switch certain genes on and off.

Right there, if everyone would fix their diets, the medical system would crash tomorrow.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Sure. Keep on believing.

When I was diagnosed with cancer (35 years ago) I was a very active surfer and hang glider pilot who would eat mostly fish, green salads, and brown rice, while living in what most would consider a paradisaical location.

I have no doubt that eating crap food, smoking cigarettes and other bad things don't help. But medical science can even help those who engage in that sort of silliness. But see, if fewer people are there to "contribute" to the science, it means that those who don't engage in that sort of behavior will have to pay even more.

I know, it's their problem. I'm glad you're not a relative of mine. I'm glad you're not my neighbor. Because I like to think that my relatives and neighbors would help me. When I need it.

How do you feel about Houston, btw. "Stupid folk, living in Houston. Too bad for them."

a reply to: Phage

You just don't get it. Things don't have to be as bad as they are. People don't have to be as sick as they are. Your cancer may have been unavoidable, but most cancers are avoidable and reversible. Type 2 diabetes is reversible. I've seen it happen.

What if all of the type 2 diabetes, cardio vascular disease, and hormone imbalances disappeared over the coarse of a year. What impact would that alone have on our medical system? It doesn't pay to cure disease.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Cancer is not avoidable. That's a totally ignorant statement.

The day cancer is preventable is irrelevant, because we'll be nearly immortal by the time we're controlling the processes that cause it.

a reply to: CarlsBad

Most cancers feed on sugar and can be starved out of the body. The body eliminates cancerous cells on a daily basis.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Your cancer may have been unavoidable, but most cancers are avoidable and reversible.

Please. Tell me. Where did I go wrong?
But you are correct, my cancer went away. After radio and chemotherapy. I know of others who had the very same cancer as I (Hodgkins lymphoma) who went the "wheatgrass" route. They didn't last very long. And when I say "wheatgrass" I mean alternative treatments. I'm here. They are not.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: CarlsBad

Most cancers feed on sugar and can be starved out of the body. The body eliminates cancerous cells on a daily basis.

Bull#

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Cancer is caused by faulty transcription.

This completely chance-based event requires no cause, only cell damage to activate new transcription processes.

A bruise can cause cancer, and not only this, a cancer-causing bruise will then make your entire genetic line more susceptible.

It works identical to what is understood as evolution, what you just said is the same as saying "Evolution is preventable."

a reply to: Phage

Yeah. And what if type 2 diabetes, cardio vascular disease, and hormone imbalances weren't overwhelming the medical system? Maybe it wouldn't be so damned expensive. Have you ever thought of that? Or is the single payer delusion that attractive?

Lymphoma is wildly different that most other cancerous tumors.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Or is the single payer delusion that attractive?

Most of the civilized world seems to think so. But hey, we're America. Right?

Lymphoma is wildly different that most other cancerous tumors.

Hodgkin's is, yes. In that it is very treatable (except with "wheatgrass"). Other than that it's just as fatal. I was "lucky". I guess.
They are dead. I am not.

a reply to: Phage

Yes. Cancers are different.

Each of their cause is still all identically identified the same as faulty transcription, a completely uncontrollable process.

Speaking about what specific cancer doesn't even matter, the reason they are all called cancer is because they share a common cause in damaged RNA/DNA. The idea sugar prevents that, or has any relationship at all is retarded.


At the very least, he knows nothing about cancer.



This is how your body naturally fights cancer.

In a nutshell, cells in your body don't like being different DNA to begin with. It's only once cancer cells replicate at a rate quicker than they are destroyed, and the immune system starts to see it as a part of the body and ignores trying to fix the error that you notice it develop.

Sources of damage[edit] DNA damage can be subdivided into two main types:
1. endogenous damage such as attack by reactive oxygen species produced from normal metabolic byproducts (spontaneous mutation), especially the process of oxidative deamination also includes replication errors

2. exogenous damage caused by external agents such as ultraviolet [UV 200-400 nm] radiation from the sun other radiation frequencies, including x-rays and gamma rays hydrolysis or thermal disruption certain plant toxins human-made mutagenic chemicals, especially aromatic compounds that act as DNA intercalating agents viruses[7]

#1 there, literally suggests cancer can have legitimately 'zero cause', "spontaneous mutation". Claiming cancer is 'preventable' is literally the same as saying you can prevent mutation from occurring to your DNA, and as I've said before, the same as saying you can prevent Evolution. The idea it's mostly attribute from diet is fake news, almost everyone and their mom knows most Cancer is from smoking, and not diet. This is beside the fact, it can come from nothing at all, and that's probably from where it first came.