[extropy-chat] Re: Robin Hanson on Cynicism

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> 
> Robin Hanson wrote:
> > 
> > You baffle me.  The usual intuitive definition of medicine is "the
> > stuff that doctors do".  
> 
> This isn't my intuitive definition of medicine. That would be like
> thinking
> economics was stuff that economists do. Or music is what is produced
> by those people that call themselves musicians. 
> To me, intuitively, medicine is about treating ailments.
> 
> >You know going to them to get advice, some of which is
> > to take drugs, undergo surgery, and so on.  The RAND experiment
> > operationalized that in the obvious way - they gave folks money to 
> > go to the doctor more.
> 
> That's poor method in my opinion.  Give money to go to the doctor
> to uneducated poor people and of course they will use it. People like
> getting attention (Hawthorne studies). 

Not necessarily, extroverts enjoy getting attention, the rest are
somewhat neutral or even opposed to the idea.

>   
> >>I'm obviously missing something here Robin.  I can't see any real
> > substance in the essay. To me you just don't cut down to anything
> > substantive.
> > 
> > I find it hard to imagine what would count as substance to you.
> 
> Major things that people die of are heart disease, cancer and
> diabetes.
> All these diseases have given ground to medicine since the Rand study
> was done in 1979 or earlier. 

Not quite. While treatments have been developed, exercise and healthy
eating/living have demonstrated higher impact, and it is in this area
that people are eating worse and exercising less, which is why those
three diseases attack more people each year, rather than less (I also
believe the cancer issue may actually reflect too much health
care/vaccination/treatment of other diseases that would otherwise kill
pre-cancerous cells or provide protection against tumor formation, much
as sickle cell protects one against malaria).

> 
> Insulin for diabetes. Angiograms then stents and bypasses for heart
> disease. Chemo and radiation treatment followed by treatment
> with stem cells. 
> 
> The Rand study didn't look at the young or the old. It excluded the 
> frailest cohorts. The groups that would have been most likely to
> benefit.

This is the point. The study demonstrates that there is little point in
health care improving life expectancy for anyone who ISN'T young or
old. Yet why do people 25-50 keep paying vast sums for health
insurance? Have you ever tried to go to your employers health plan and
say "I just want coverage for my kids"? No, you can cover yourself
(cheaply), your spouse (a little more) or your family (expensive)
because the bulk of health care costs is invested in the kids. If you
just get coverage for yourself you are generally paying more than you
will use. Your premiums are subsidizing the breeders.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com