Thanks for the replies all. Yes I agree stereotypes are laden but given the audience here, I don't think I need to worry.
>If by lifetyle choice you mean seeking alternative medicine treatment like >laertrile (see: http://alternativecancer.us/laetrile.htm ) or herbal treatments as >in the case of Ms. Flasch instead of the standard treatment, then, yes, I agree, >lifestyle choice do increasee insurance premiums and other costs because >people may turn to standard treatments too late. No, actually by lifestyle choices I meant as previously said. That is: "things like sedentary lifestyle, smoking, drinking, getting obese, taking unnecessary risks, and the weanies that go to the emergency department every time they have a cough, etc." Surely you don't think that people seeking alternative medicine is costing standard medicine anything remotely close to the costs incurred by people who smoke (and get heart attacks, strokes, circulatory conditions, etc), drink (and of course the resulting traffic injuries, liver, and brain issues, etc), and are obese (clogged arteries, heart attacks, and making everyone who has to sit next to them on a plane very uncomfortable, etc)? With regard to postponing standard treatment like "Leslee Flasch" that you mentioned. I don't see how it would cost the medical system more. Wouldn't it cost less since the treatment is over a shorter period before death? My take home message from Chris' original article was not that the government should be combating alternative therapies, but that it should be fixing the "health care" system (which I think is really a "disease care" system). Presumably, then, people wouldn't be as disposed to alternative health care in the first place. --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
