My Health Insurance Company Got Me Evicted & a Claim of Eugenics? (Video)

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by KingAceSuited

 

I take it the 'surprise' results of the Genome Project that you refer to are the new views of noncoding DNA, epigenetic marks, proteins, and other molecules that are attached to DNA and apparently play a role in heredity.

No - I refer to the fact that there aren't enough genes in the human genetic code to explain much as "genetic." Public conceptions of what constitutes "genetic" and "genetic susceptibility" are misinformed and manipulated to cover-up corporate industry's culpability in altering the planet's environment, protect industry from liability for the impacts, and promote "personal responsibility in health" public policies as a distraction from the real problems. Totally, completely wrong.

Oh, well did you know that the results of the Genome Project include a change in scientific consensus among scientists and researchers regarding new views about noncoding DNA, epigenetic marks, proteins, and other molecules that are attached to DNA and apparently play a role in heredity? Scientific literature abounds with recognition of "nurture's" role in heredity and phenotypic expression.

reply to post by KingAceSuited


Of course I know there's a change in scientific consensus among scientists and researchers.

However, even educated people are NOT current and with a whole lot of help from corporate myth-makers, the vast majority of the population remain convinced that "it's genetic." ....Either that, or it's "bad diet" or "irresponsible lifestyle."

reply to post by soficrow


Ah, I understand. people often focus on genetics while ignoring non-genetic alternatives that might prevent or cure what ails them.

I had to think about it for a moment, but there are times when I think in a marginal way about diseases or treatments. When a culture of marginalization in though occurs, that's far from healthy or progressive.

Speaking of which, I suppose I'll have a deeper look at those links on large corporate networks.

reply to post by jude11
I’m left with several doubts because of some of her statements & believe her inferences to eugenics are definitely misplaced. I won’t be any harsher than that.

1. I immediately noticed she choose to exclude the name of her insurance carrier or the RX to which she was referring. It is not slanderous to accuse an insurance carrier of denying lifesaving of life-improving treatment if this is your true belief. Her lack of specifics made me suspicious & she only seems to divulge information sympathetic to her cause.

2. She perpetuates the notion that her carrier sought out information from Caris in an effort to deny her claim (via some nefarious "Caris Report"). I could find absolutely no evidence that Caris has consultancy arrangements with any specific carriers which probably means that she or her doctor sought the advice of a medical provider within Caris' organization. They recommended an FDA approved RX for her specific condition over her "chosen medications", which she admits are not the traditional treatment for her condition.

For the most part, carriers follow FDA guidelines when it comes to approved drugs for any given medical condition and this is clearly stated in all insurance policies. I'm not saying that the FDA doesn't have its own set of problems & conflicts of interest, but that really has no bearing here. One of the largest insurance providers in the country, United Healthcare, follows the guidelines set forth by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) when it comes to empirically proven therapeutic efficacy of oncology drugs, but if you listen to her words, she is not talking about oncology drugs. She never mentions the words “oncology” or “chemotherapy” but she does mention “brain tumor” which makes one think that her insurance carrier is insisting she use one chemotherapy RX with potentially toxic side effects over another RX proven seven years ago to be safer than 30% of the other drugs available at that time for her particular condition. Additionally, in cases of life threatening illnesses where oncology drugs are used, most states have laws that set criteria by which the insurance carriers must consider coverage for alternative "investigational" treatment - even drugs not yet approved by the FDA for the specific cancer. Due to the proliferation of lawsuits by family members who have lost loved ones because of callous insurance company decisions, most carriers would rather cover this type of drug, as long as the qualifying criteria is met, over risking the cost of a lawsuit which could potentially cost them millions. I've negotiated many of these exceptions myself as a patient advocate & found the carriers to be selfishly accommodating.

3. If you listen closely to her choice of words, she is not referring to an RX to treat or cure her brain tumor – she’s referring to a medication therapy she has elected herself to use to combat “THE SYMPTOMS & PROBLEMS related to her brain tumor". She consistently says that her current chosen drug therapy provides quality of life & alertness. I find the term alertness to be very interesting but I'm not a doctor & would prefer to not hypothesize on this point or come off as seeming unsympathetic to her medical condition. I’m sure it’s terrible & she deserves all due sympathy; however, the fact is that she is voluntarily choosing an RX regiment that she likes; not one that has been empirically proven to be the most effective in combating these symptoms & problems.

Whereas I'm not a fan of the insurance or pharmaceutical industry, if every patient is allowed to choose their own drugs because they LIKE those drugs for whatever reason, our insurance premiums would be even more astronomical than they already are, not to mention that we would probably have a significant number of addicted zombies walking around. Heck, I myself suffer from a disease called Lupus which causes debilitating migraines when it’s in flare mode. The FDA approved treatment is an RX called Prednisone which not only makes me feel like I want to climb the walls, but it's only purpose is to alleviate the symptoms of my disease (which is does). I suppose that a good ole' narcotic pain killer would do just as good a job at relieving my symptoms (and then some), but that doesn't make it right that I should be able to dictate an RX for the pain killer, which is potentially addictive (leading to even more medical problems) & definitely more costly.

Every argument has two sides & I'm sympathetic to anyone who has to choose medication over rent; this should never be allowed to happen. But she had a choice of insurance covered RX and chose instead to pay for another she liked better over paying her rent. This goes back to a sense of entitlement in my opinion.

reply to post by KingAceSuited

Ah, I understand. people often focus on genetics while ignoring non-genetic alternatives that might prevent or cure what ails them. ....I had to think about it for a moment, but there are times when I think in a marginal way about diseases or treatments.

No, you don't understand. Our world's corporate leaders transmogrified their standard legal defence into public health policy - under the "personal responsibility in health" banner, every major human ill now is considered to result from "bad diet, irresponsible lifestyle and/or genetics."

In fact, industrial activities and industrial products -including medications and food- create the planet's most prevalent, deadly and debilitating diseases, then global distribution networks spread them around the world. Even people with excellent diets, totally responsible lifestyles and "superior" bloodlines are not immune to the environmental contaminations that cause these diseases.

When a culture of marginalization in though occurs, that's far from healthy or progressive.

Marginalization? Hardly. In 2011, the NCD Pandemic will kill 38 million people - more than all other causes combined. Roughly 3.5 Billion people -half the world's population- already suffers from NCDs. Corporate industry's goals are to dodge liability AND avoid taxes for needed social health programs to mitigate victims' suffering.

Just wait til all the people in the Occupy Movement find out what they really have in common - and why corporate culture is writing them off.

....I suppose I'll have a deeper look at those links on large corporate networks.

You do that. You'll find that the corporate economic system is sewed up real tight.