I've been reading up on Daschle's health care "reform" ideas and think they are scary.

All that's gonna happen is that the lobbyists will gather around his new "Health Fed" to work their evil wiles. Drug company money, insurance co. $$, etc. will continue to have their way in deciding what is reimbursable. "Evidence-based" evaluations are largely a scam, because they can ignore many treatment effects/side effects by simply not testing for them, i.e. by excluding them from the evidence. There will be no more incentive than now to develop non-patentable interventions, and the ability of researchers to cover up unwanted results will continue unabated.

I can name you probably ten non-drug interventions for a variety of mental health problems that are very effective, but for various reasons (e.g. because they don't fall into the prevailing paradigm, because they are too expensive, because they have been blackballed by biased researchers) are not reimbursable. I don't see this situation getting anything but worse under the system Daschle has been advocating.

Examples of such therapies, all non-drug, non-invasive, and at least as effective as the "approved" therapies: Cranial electrostimulation; Thought Field Therapy/Emotional Freedom Technique; half a dozen varieties of eeg training; hematoencephalography.

The Daschle plan just seems to be a new system for licensing Big Pharma and Big Medicine and Big Insurance to continue the same old games.

We need a system in which health care is universally accessible and treatment decisions are made by licensed providers and well-informed patients, not by some faceless, corruptible bureaucracy.

issues around healthcare reforms that I thought were more simple than they were. There isn't a really clean solution to this whole mess. I'm not sure of what he's proposed, but I'll have to read.

"Evidence-based" evaluations are largely a scam, because they can ignore many treatment effects/side effects by simply not testing for them, i.e. by excluding them from the evidence.

1) You can't test for side-effects. You can only observe them.

2) FDA regulations are very clear about how you conduct clinical trials; there has been lax enforcement under Bush, but that will change.

3) Present the clinical, peer-reviewed evidence that Thought-Field Therapy (whatever the hell that is) is an effective treatment for whatever it is supposed to treat.

to study? I'm for HR 676 and need to know what I'm up against.

. . . rather than after-the-fact crisis management, which is how it works now.

:rant:

health problems in America - and you will see how far that gets you. Be sure to bring your teflon/flame retardant suit. Mine's at the cleaners...gotta run! :D

Some of this involves having enough money and resources to live in decent housing, eat properly, etc.; i.e. general prevention/relief of poverty. But being able to see your doctor for advice on a regular basis BEFORE major problems develop is also crucial.

pay for actual health care if you need it. Thanks for spreading more insurance company propaganda. The fact is that if people have access to health care they will get the treatment they need in the beginning stages of a disease, whether it's as simple as diet and quitting smoking, or a prescription for high blood pressure. It's when people can't afford to go to the doctor when there are symptoms, that diseases aren't treated until they are well advanced.

I disagree that "Evidence-based" evaluations are largely a scam, because they can ignore many treatment effects/side effects by simply not testing for them, i.e. by excluding them from the evidence." That is what happens when evidence-based evaluations are done *badly*; it's not an inevitable part of such evaluations. That argument is almost like saying that all laws are a scam because people sometimes break them.

Unfortunately, it is possible for purveyors of mental health treatments, even more than those of treatments for physical conditions, to prey shamelessly on the vulnerable unless there is some sort of watchdog. This can and does certainly happen with drug treatments; but it also happens with 'alternative' treatments.

Most of the treatments that you mention for mental health problems have not been properly tested and I would be reluctant to see them put universally on the market, or paid for in a routine fashion by the government (thus limiting funds available for more proven treatments), until they *have* been tested. There are an increasing number of treatments for mental health problems which have been shown to be effective, and not all of them are drug-based (e.g. cognitive behaviour therapy).

"Thought Field Therapy"?

WTF?

We still have some bridges in London I'd be happy to sell you.

to get his attention. I so far am not happy with what he thinks is a good plan.

I'll get the ouija board, you get the Loch Ness Monster.

He's been supporting the exact same policies unchanged for over 2,000 years, and not since 1978 as is commonly asserted by his critics. Hell, after 2,000 years, they must be good, right?

QED.

Maybe we will finally end most of the chiropractic and homeopathic crap that is out there.

Scientific medicine may not always work, but so far it is the only thing that ever has. If clinical testing cannot figure out what works and what does not, then there is not way to know.

is proof that it's beneficial. However, it will give the insurance company a market to sell their product, which is just as useless as the quackery.