What’s Making Us Sick Is an Epidemic of Diagnoses

I just believe that the number who really need meds is a small percentage, as opposed to the huge numbers who are on meds now.

And I think you are wrong. There's a new test for Lyme disease, by the Bowen Labs in Florida. They do a dye stain and visual check for the borrellia bug itself, rather than looking for secondary effects like antibodies to the bug. They are finding Lyme in about 40% of the population.

Since Lymes can cause behavioral trouble, it would seem that an epidemic level of chronic Lyme, could cause an epidemic level of behavioral trouble.

And Lyme isn't the only thing that can cause this problem. Behavior changes are also common to the autoimmune diseases.

Count me in the 'it's real' group. It may be genetic, familial, it may be caused by something biological or it may be caused by other factors, or....like lots of things, it just may be.

And while it's over diagnosed in some ways, I think it's underdiagnosed in others. Which is sad. I do know that for me and others with it, the diagnosis and treatment (yes, including meds!) was the best thing that ever happened.

Very good, I can't disagree with any of your points.
Neither would Dr. Szasz.

The remaining potential problem with your analysis is that - just because we CAN often establish an "organic" cause for a behavior, does not mean the government (taxpayers) should pay for it, finance a treatment or a cure. I'm sure you you would agree with that, if you are a conservative.

When individuals, especially parents, pay the FULL COST of personal events and choices they make, this provides a huge incentive for parents, particularly future parents, to take care to do testing, buy insurance, and etc. to ensure that their future children are healthy and born without costly problems, or if they are saddled with those problems, appropriate levels of insurance have been purchased so as not to burden others - other taxpayers, with their own burdens and problems.

4L

The remaining potential problem with your analysis is that - just because we CAN often establish an "organic" cause for a behavior, does not mean the government (taxpayers) should pay for it, finance a treatment or a cure. I'm sure you you would agree with that, if you are a conservative.

I can agree with that. The primary worry I have is that the goverment will get in the way by specifying what treatment is allowed, or what meds are available.

Personally, I'm a little tired of the "Beat on the Medical Profession" brigade of backseat coaches.

In so far as I can remember, every doctor I've ever dealt with has been a professional. And helped me when I needed the help.

One or two might have had "middle of the road" skills but still, I have no complaints.

And I'm getting sick of people who have nothing but complaints.

Thanks to AMA's legal monopoly (cartel), we get less choice. I agree wholeheartedly.

There is a very good book - "From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967" by David T. Beito.
It explores the negative effects of the AMA's takeover (domination) of the HC industry over the past 100 years. Interesting book. Lots of data. Should be read by anyone interested in our HC problems, the costs & shortages, etc. we face today. "Thanks," A.M.A.!

Suppose car insurance covered very visit to the dealer's service department with a $10 copayment? Maintenance, repairs, every aspect of normal wear and tear?

Would the service departments advertise fixes for every imaginable noise? Every conceivable imperfection?

How about fuel and oil additives? $2 copayments for every bottle of injector cleaner or oil stabilizer?

What would happen?

1-Long lines at the service department
2-Higher prices for parts and accessories (for anyone without insurance)
3-Commercials touting the latest additive or mechanical tweak would be all over the TV, pointing the deficiencies of your auto and how much better it would be.
4-Car insurance rates would climb by double digits every year.
5-The liberals would whine that the government should run the car insurance industry and regulate the price of car parts.
6-Liberals would mandate that heretofore unsubsidized auto related expenses should be included in everyone's coverage. 72 month batteries should have the same copayment as 24 month batteries. Giving everyone the incentive to put 72 month batteries in their cars. Even the $1,000 junkers.
7-Liberals would mandate that your insurance should pay 100% of preventive maintenance on the premise that your auto will need fewer expensive repairs down the road. The dealer must check the air in your tires every six weeks and the bill sent to the ins company (this will lessen tire wear and put off expensive tire replacement).

And somewhere along the way the notion that cars aren't perfect, that they wear out despite the best care will be forgotten. The concept that the car owner is responsible for his car will become laughable. And so on, ad absurdium.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.