Common Non-Sense: Healthcare costs

[Occam's Razor]

Our countries finances are a wreck. We are literally bankrupt many times over. Cuts will have to be made, it's just that simple. Health care entitlements are one place where we are going to have to make some cuts and maybe some sacrifices to the general welfare.

The blame can be found everywhere, from our politicians, bureaucracy, skyrocketing health care services, lack of corporate ethics in pursuit of profit... everywhere but... us. We are the victims.

Or are we? What would you sacrifice to restore this country? Would you send your children (or someone else's) to war? As in WWII, would you go without nylons, rubber, copper, steel? What about your food? Would you be willing to ration?

Why we are the problem, not the victims...

We are seeing an explosion of chronic disease in this country. Long term care and lives dependent on medications are very expensive. And while some of this is do to genetics, more than three quarters of it is due to lifestyle choices and diet.

These causes are expressed through the intermediate [modifiable] risk factors of raised blood pressure, raised glucose levels, abnormal blood lipids (particularly low density lipoprotein – LDL cholesterol), and overweight (body mass index ≥25 kg/m2) and obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2). The major modifiable risk factors, in conjunction with the non-modifiable risk factors of age and heredity, explain the majority of new events of heart disease, stroke, chronic respiratory diseases and some important cancers.
WHO | Part Two. The urgent need for action

What if chronic disease didn't have to be chronic in six people out of ten? With simple lifestyle changes, this could be achieved. However, that would create a loss of over sixty percent of a very lucrative market, long term healthcare. From pharmaceutical companies to the at home oxygen and mobility scooter sellers, these are the voices that hold influence over our representation on these matters.

Another place this would be lost is in the food supplier market. It would require either a shift away from corporate foods and more to organic farmers and local produce. It would also mean a drastic cut in dairy and meat industries.

Petro-chemical industries would also see a hit as we begin to realize that chemicals used at any stage in the food chain finds it's way into us.

And again, billion dollar sales of pharmaceuticals would be halved. Things people take and accept as a normal part of aging in America... from vitamins and supplements to statins, blood thinners and blood pressure meds.

All of these forces hold far more sway and influence over policy and information given to the public than those that simply have an interest in health for the sake of health.

While you may indeed have a genetic predisposition to certain diseases, often they are not activated or encouraged to grow out of control unless modifiable risk factors are ignored.

For more information on this, I encourage everyone to watch "Forks over Knives", a documentary on the clear and age old link between diet and disease.

Another fact filled yet dry documentary/lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNCGkprGW_o

If we want to cut Health Care costs in this country, stop accepting what is sold to you as healthy... it's not. We could cut chronic disease in this country in half in just a few years.... And it's on the individual to do so. So the next time you hear some fat-ass partisan who tells you they won't be told what they should eat, what their children should eat, and then shrill about healthcare costs and entitlements, let them know you don't appreciate having to pay for their lifestyle choices in their retirement years...

 

[MaggieD]

Our countries finances are a wreck. We are literally bankrupt many times over. Cuts will have to be made, it's just that simple. Health care entitlements are one place where we are going to have to make some cuts and maybe some sacrifices to the general welfare.

The blame can be found everywhere, from our politicians, bureaucracy, skyrocketing health care services, lack of corporate ethics in pursuit of profit... everywhere but... us. We are the victims.

Or are we? What would you sacrifice to restore this country? Would you send your children (or someone else's) to war? As in WWII, would you go without nylons, rubber, copper, steel? What about your food? Would you be willing to ration?

Why we are the problem, not the victims...

We are seeing an explosion of chronic disease in this country. Long term care and lives dependent on medications are very expensive. And while some of this is do to genetics, more than three quarters of it is due to lifestyle choices and diet.

What if chronic disease didn't have to be chronic in six people out of ten? With simple lifestyle changes, this could be achieved. However, that would create a loss of over sixty percent of a very lucrative market, long term healthcare. From pharmaceutical companies to the at home oxygen and mobility scooter sellers, these are the voices that hold influence over our representation on these matters.

Another place this would be lost is in the food supplier market. It would require either a shift away from corporate foods and more to organic farmers and local produce. It would also mean a drastic cut in dairy and meat industries.

Petro-chemical industries would also see a hit as we begin to realize that chemicals used at any stage in the food chain finds it's way into us.

And again, billion dollar sales of pharmaceuticals would be halved. Things people take and accept as a normal part of aging in America... from vitamins and supplements to statins, blood thinners and blood pressure meds.

All of these forces hold far more sway and influence over policy and information given to the public than those that simply have an interest in health for the sake of health.

While you may indeed have a genetic predisposition to certain diseases, often they are not activated or encouraged to grow out of control unless modifiable risk factors are ignored.

For more information on this, I encourage everyone to watch "Forks over Knives", a documentary on the clear and age old link between diet and disease.

Another fact filled yet dry documentary/lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNCGkprGW_o

If we want to cut Health Care costs in this country, stop accepting what is sold to you as healthy... it's not. We could cut chronic disease in this country in half in just a few years.... And it's on the individual to do so. So the next time you hear some fat-ass partisan who tells you they won't be told what they should eat, what their children should eat, and then shrill about healthcare costs and entitlements, let them know you don't appreciate having to pay for their lifestyle choices in their retirement years...

Education is the key. (As always.) Actually, I think Michelle Obama has done a good job of highlighting healthy choices for our children. She could do more, but anything's better than nothing, so I'm personally appreciative. The new food plate is genius. Makes so much more sense than the pyramid ever did. Where she could do more would be in the area of school breakfast/lunch programs. We need chefs in the kitchens, not food reheaters. We need guidelines that processed foods are banned in schools, in my opinion.

Everything you eat that's processed is carefully engineered to whet your appetite and cause you to eat more. The magic combination of salt/fat/sugar is like "chum" to our tummies and our brains. More! More! More! (Potato chips: try eating just one. Ha!) McDonald's Corporation, as just one example, has a "chew ratio" for its buns. (That's my take on it; I'm sure they don't use that term.) Their buns have been carefully processsed to "melt in your mouth." Most of that junk isn't even really food.

Nothing could be clearer than diabetes when it comes to linking disease to our food choices. And we all know diabetes is epidemic. The list of diseases linked to obesity is long. Combine that with our relatively new lifestyle of sitting in front of computers playing games and one has a recipe for disaster.

Who hasn't had the little niggling thought that cancer is big business? That, if a cure were found, if a prevention were found, it might be bought up by the likes of Merck or Phizer in order to sustain a business model that makes hundreds of billions of dollars day-in-day-out treating it instead of curing it?

Follow the money. Three truer words have never been joined together.

 

[Xerographica]

To solve the healthcare debate we should allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes...Awesomeness Spotting.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Education is the key. (As always.) Actually, I think Michelle Obama has done a good job of highlighting healthy choices for our children. She could do more, but anything's better than nothing, so I'm personally appreciative. The new food plate is genius. Makes so much more sense than the pyramid ever did. Where she could do more would be in the area of school breakfast/lunch programs. We need chefs in the kitchens, not food reheaters. We need guidelines that processed foods are banned in schools, in my opinion.

Everything you eat that's processed is carefully engineered to whet your appetite and cause you to eat more. The magic combination of salt/fat/sugar is like "chum" to our tummies and our brains. More! More! More! (Potato chips: try eating just one. Ha!) McDonald's Corporation, as just one example, has a "chew ratio" for its buns. (That's my take on it; I'm sure they don't use that term.) Their buns have been carefully processsed to "melt in your mouth." Most of that junk isn't even really food.

Nothing could be clearer than diabetes when it comes to linking disease to our food choices. And we all know diabetes is epidemic. The list of diseases linked to obesity is long. Combine that with our relatively new lifestyle of sitting in front of computers playing games and one has a recipe for disaster.

Who hasn't had the little niggling thought that cancer is big business? That, if a cure were found, if a prevention were found, it might be bought up by the likes of Merck or Phizer in order to sustain a business model that makes hundreds of billions of dollars day-in-day-out treating it instead of curing it?

Follow the money. Three truer words have never been joined together.

Exactly!

The very people that are selling us all this crap are the same that are telling our gov't what we should eat and the rest of us what is "healthy".

Are you referencing the USDA food pyramid/plate?

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110923224309/healthyrecipes/images/a/a9/USDA_My_Plate.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vaScTE1U1...E4TnBSwSk/s1600/okinawa_diet_food_pyramid.jpg

Or the Harvard food pyramid/plate

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/images/healthyeatingpyramidresize.jpg

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/images/healthy-eating-plate-700.jpg

Anyone notice any difference between the one heavily influenced by industry in the pursuit of profit and the one based in the pursuit of knowledge?

 

[Occam's Razor]

To solve the healthcare debate we should allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes...Awesomeness Spotting.

To SOLVE that healthcare PROBLEM, attack it at the source... the lifestyle choices of individuals. If people aren't getting chronic illnesses, healthcare becomes a fair less of an expenditure.

 

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

The US pays more for health care and is not even in the top twenty in favorable healthcare outcomes.
WHO | Global Health Observatory Data Repository
US Spends Most on Health Care; Results Lag - CBS News
Health Care Spending

Maybe instead of making cuts on expenditures, we should do what other countries have done to lower costs: go to a single payer system for basic healthcare and allow citizens to purchase additional coverage if they wish. The two single payer systems in the US (Medicare & TriCare) manage to provide better healthcare at a lower cost than the current private system. How? They have the leverage to negotiate with drug companies and with providers and do not have to satify any shareholders.

I submit that going to a single payer system should be our goal because it is a proven method of containing costs. Providing even less healthcare will ultimately cost most as the treatment of individual who become critically ill due to lack of early treatment will still fall on taxpayers and that treatment is the most expensive medical route.

We certainly should not consider going to a voucher system so private insurers can grab even more tax dollars earmarked to provide healthcare to citizens. Their 15 to 20% cut is part of the problem now.

 

[1Perry]

The only way to make lifestyle choices change in the big picture is to make things we feel are bad very expensive or illegal. We know smoking is bad for you and the percentages of people smoking has fell some but more and more start everyday and those who like it continue to smoke even though we have raised their costs to do so quite a bit.

Even then, Linda McCartney still died of cancer. So I disagree that this is where savings are going to kick in. It's the place nobody wants to discuss. Death panels. It's inevitable. The are we can save money is in not trying to extend lives to the very last moment we can. The problem right now is those choices would affect everyone including those who want to control how others live their lives.

Eat all the bad stuff and smoke but we aren't going to give you a new heart after a certain age.

 

[Occam's Razor]

The US pays more for health care and is not even in the top twenty in favorable healthcare outcomes.
WHO | Global Health Observatory Data Repository
US Spends Most on Health Care; Results Lag - CBS News
Health Care Spending

Maybe instead of making cuts on expenditures, we should do what other countries have done to lower costs: go to a single payer system for basic healthcare and allow citizens to purchase additional coverage if they wish. The two single payer systems in the US (Medicare & TriCare) manage to provide better healthcare at a lower cost than the current private system. How? They have the leverage to negotiate with drug companies and with providers and do not have to satify any shareholders.

I submit that going to a single payer system should be our goal because it is a proven method of containing costs. Providing even less healthcare will ultimately cost most as the treatment of individual who become critically ill due to lack of early treatment will still fall on taxpayers and that treatment is the most expensive medical route.

We certainly should not consider going to a voucher system so private insurers can grab even more tax dollars earmarked to provide healthcare to citizens. Their 15 to 20% cut is part of the problem now.

Before we talk about how to shuffle policy and money around trying to find through trial and error the right economic balance... shouldn't we look at eliminating the causes of chronic disease first? Or at least at the same time?

This isn't a partisan issue. This isn't an economic issue really... it's a health issue that could have positive economic impact and could reduce the idiot power jockeying of gov't by greatly reducing the issue to begin with?

If we simply ate better the only thing that need to be done to the current system economically is to reform the abuses of the system by former welfare class and third tier marketers to medicare recipients, like scooter sales and other late night hawkers of "direct to medicare billing" healthcare product industries as well as reducing the amount of prescription drugs needed to be paid for.

 

[Xerographica]

To SOLVE that healthcare PROBLEM, attack it at the source... the lifestyle choices of individuals. If people aren't getting chronic illnesses, healthcare becomes a fair less of an expenditure.

Wouldn't allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes accomplish this? Did you agree or disagree with the article I referenced in the blog entry that I linked you to?

 

[MaggieD]

Before we talk about how to shuffle policy and money around trying to find through trial and error the right economic balance... shouldn't we look at eliminating the causes of chronic disease first? Or at least at the same time?

This isn't a partisan issue. This isn't an economic issue really... it's a health issue that could have positive economic impact and could reduce the idiot power jockeying of gov't by greatly reducing the issue to begin with?

If we simply ate better the only thing that need to be done to the current system economically is to reform the abuses of the system by former welfare class and third tier marketers to medicare recipients, like scooter sales and other late night hawkers of "direct to medicare billing" healthcare product industries as well as reducing the amount of prescription drugs needed to be paid for.

Agreed. Yet attacking all fronts wouldn't hurt either. Sleep Apnea Studies. Every senior I know is being tested for freakin' sleep apnea. A night in a lab hooked up to monitors...then a recommendation they wear a mask to bed. "You stop breathing at night. You could die." Yeah, I hear all the time about Uncle Harry's all over the world going to sleep and never waking up. Give me a break. If these seniors had to pay a measly $200 for this study, they'd never have it done. As it is, these seniors proudly announce they're going for a sleep study as if they're wearing some badge of honor.

The corporate profit motive is killin' us. In more ways than one. Ha!

 

[jimbo]

The US pays more for health care and is not even in the top twenty in favorable healthcare outcomes.
WHO | Global Health Observatory Data Repository
US Spends Most on Health Care; Results Lag - CBS News
Health Care Spending

Maybe instead of making cuts on expenditures, we should do what other countries have done to lower costs: go to a single payer system for basic healthcare and allow citizens to purchase additional coverage if they wish. The two single payer systems in the US (Medicare & TriCare) manage to provide better healthcare at a lower cost than the current private system. How? They have the leverage to negotiate with drug companies and with providers and do not have to satify any shareholders.

I submit that going to a single payer system should be our goal because it is a proven method of containing costs. Providing even less healthcare will ultimately cost most as the treatment of individual who become critically ill due to lack of early treatment will still fall on taxpayers and that treatment is the most expensive medical route.

We certainly should not consider going to a voucher system so private insurers can grab even more tax dollars earmarked to provide healthcare to citizens. Their 15 to 20% cut is part of the problem now.

We already have the system you propose. No one is denied basic health care in the US, and, as of now, we can still purchase additional coverage as we see fit.

 

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

I've always been an advocate of the "sin" tax - charging smokers, drinkers, gluttons more for health insurance than those who who choose a healthier lifestyle.

In a single payer system, this could be done easily via higher premiums & copays for those with unhealthy lifestyles. I also would favor making places to exercise, learn about healthier eating habits, quit smoking and addiction treatment part of the healthcare delivery system and providing financial incentives (lower premiums or co-pays) to patients for participating. This would still allow US citizens freedom to choose, but it would transfer more of the cost of treating those making bad choices back to the group.

 

[Occam's Razor]

The only way to make lifestyle choices change in the big picture is to make things we feel are bad very expensive or illegal. We know smoking is bad for you and the percentages of people smoking has fell some but more and more start everyday and those who like it continue to smoke even though we have raised their costs to do so quite a bit.

Even then, Linda McCartney still died of cancer. So I disagree that this is where savings are going to kick in. It's the place nobody wants to discuss. Death panels. It's inevitable. The are we can save money is in not trying to extend lives to the very last moment we can. The problem right now is those choices would affect everyone including those who want to control how others live their lives.

Eat all the bad stuff and smoke but we aren't going to give you a new heart after a certain age.

While I think there is some truth in what you say, that people aren't willing to change without coercion... especially if all they have to do is charge their statins and BP meds to the American people... But I would suggest something more in line with what I support for welfare recipients and unemployment recipients...

If you want welfare and unemployment, you must show you are working to get off those programs.

Likewise, if you want medicare/medicaid to pay for your meds, you should be required to show plans and progress to getting off these meds if they are due to modifiable lifestyle choices.

Imagine how much we could save by just halving the expenditures (not cost of) on statins and BP meds...

 

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

We already have the system you propose. No one is denied basic health care in the US, and, as of now, we can still purchase additional coverage as we see fit.

Wrong. Basic healthcare includes well-care (immunizations, periodic checks of BP, lipids, etc.) and testing to detect things like cancer before the cancer is so advanced it costs a million dollars to treat or heart function before a massive coronary or stroke necessitates a $500,000 hospital and rehab stay.

The US 'safety net' system only kicks in when people are very ill or have very low incomes. The working poor do not get basic care in this country.

 

[jimbo]

Wrong. Basic healthcare includes well-care (immunizations, periodic checks of BP, lipids, etc.) and testing to detect things like cancer before the cancer is so advanced it costs a million dollars to treat or heart function before a massive coronary or stroke necessitates a $500,000 hospital and rehab stay.

The US 'safety net' system only kicks in when people are very ill or have very low incomes. The working poor do not get basic care in this country.

Now you are expanding the definition of basic health care to consider those items you consider basic. No government ever remains static or goes away, and it seems by your posts that the real goal is a single payer system.

 

[1Perry]

While I think there is some truth in what you say, that people aren't willing to change without coercion... especially if all they have to do is charge their statins and BP meds to the American people... But I would suggest something more in line with what I support for welfare recipients and unemployment recipients...

If you want welfare and unemployment, you must show you are working to get off those programs.

Likewise, if you want medicare/medicaid to pay for your meds, you should be required to show plans and progress to getting off these meds if they are due to modifiable lifestyle choices.

Imagine how much we could save by just halving the expenditures (not cost of) on statins and BP meds...

O.K. this is interesting. I believe we can get some people to change when they see something more in it for them. So is your plan for those who do not stop smoking one where we simply tell them to go home and smoke until you die?

 

[Occam's Razor]

O.K. this is interesting. I believe we can get some people to change when they see something more in it for them. So is your plan for those who do not stop smoking one where we simply tell them to go home and smoke until you die?

Considering that if nothing is said or done, they will smoke until they die anyway... yes.

It's a choice. But many are not well informed enough to make that choice.... nor is there sufficient "immediate gratification" to counter that of taking a pill and eating what you're addicted/conditioned to.

 

[1Perry]

Considering that if nothing is said or done, they will smoke until they die anyway... yes.

Well that expand on my thoughts above that we are going to have to decide to not pay for everything. It's too bad we refuse to admit that.

It's a choice. But many are not well informed enough to make that choice.... nor is there sufficient "immediate gratification" to counter that of taking a pill and eating what you're addicted/conditioned to.

There is no one that doesn't know that smoking is bad for you.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Well that expand on my thoughts above that we are going to have to decide to not pay for everything. It's too bad we refuse to admit that.



There is no one that doesn't know that smoking is bad for you.

Quite true... however, where food is concerned that is not so much the case... Take a look at this shocking article from Open Market dot Org...

These studies both measure levels of BPA. The first measures BPA levels found in canned food, and the JAMA piece measures BPA levels found in human urine. Surprise, surprise, BPA is found in canned food and urine of those who ate it. So what? The human body consumes a host of chemicals every day, man-made and synthetic. That doesn’t mean they pose a significant risk.

The real story is the dangers that could result if people listen to leftist activists and meaningless JAMA articles condemning BPA use.
http://www.openmarket.org/2011/11/2...berry-sauce-green-beans-and-gravy/#more-48195

Speaking of tobacco, I remember the days (70s) when tobacco companies refuted studies saying smoking was a cause of disease. They even funded studies to show as much. With this kind of information in the stream it at the very least clouds the issue. Worse, it serves as a soft assurance that whatever you believe is okay...

 

[1Perry]

Speaking of tobacco, I remember the days (70s) when tobacco companies refuted studies saying smoking was a cause of disease. They even funded studies to show as much. With this kind of information in the stream it at the very least clouds the issue. Worse, it serves as a soft assurance that whatever you believe is okay...

Yes they did but nobody believed them. From the time I was a little kid (I'm 50) they were called cancer sticks.

 

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Now you are expanding the definition of basic health care to consider those items you consider basic. No government ever remains static or goes away, and it seems by your posts that the real goal is a single payer system.

The goal is adequate basic healthcare at a reasonable cost. The only proven system for delivering that in first-world countries is the single payer system. Feel free to prove me wrong with facts if you can. (BTW, I'll be gone soon to embark on a day of unhealthy eating :mrgreen: , but will be back this evening to check on your proof.)

 

[Occam's Razor]

The goal is adequate basic healthcare at a reasonable cost. The only proven system for delivering that in first-world countries is the single payer system. Feel free to prove me wrong with facts if you can. (BTW, I'll be gone soon to embark on a day of unhealthy eating :mrgreen: , but will be back this evening to check on your proof.)

I disagree... The only proven system for providing basic healthcare at reasonable cost is leading a healthy lifestyle and eating right. It starts with you.. and me... How we care for ourselves. The idea that someone can choose to eat McDonalds every day, processed packaged food, drink, smoke, etc., and then expect doctors and health providers to save them at tremendous cost to insurance and public payors... is insane.

If you don't need the excessive health care in the first place, there is no cost.

 

[winston53660]

I disagree... The only proven system for providing basic healthcare at reasonable cost is leading a healthy lifestyle and eating right. It starts with you.. and me... How we care for ourselves. The idea that someone can choose to eat McDonalds every day, processed packaged food, drink, smoke, etc., and then expect doctors and health providers to save them at tremendous cost to insurance and public payors... is insane.

If you don't need the excessive health care in the first place, there is no cost.

Errr I have a congenital heart defect called isolated left ventricular non-compaction.

Treatment for patients with IVNC should be directed at the management of left ventricular systolic impairment where present; the detection, treatment and prevention of arrhythmias; and the prevention of systemic embolic events [3,4]. In addition to treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, β-blockers and, where appropriate, diuretics and/or digoxin, all patients with IVNC should be screened annually with 24-hour electrocardiogram recordings and considered for long-term prophylactic anticoagulation with warfarin. The high incidence of sudden death reported in patients with IVNC has prompted some authors to advocate a strategy of "early" automated implantable cardiodefibrillator implantation [3]. The role of biventricular pacemakers in this population remains unclear. Finally, where pharmacological therapy fails to halt the progression to cardiac failure, heart transplantation should be considered [4].
Initial data from Europe and America reported a 4- to 6-year combined mortality or transplantation rate of ~50% to 60% [3,4] although recent UK data indicate the prognosis may be more favourable [7]. Our patient responded well to the introduction of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition, beta-blockade and warfarin anticoagulation but is currently being considered for cardiac transplantation.
Journal of Medical Case Reports | Full text | Isolated left ventricular non-compaction, an unusual cause of heart failure: a case report

Welcome to my world.

 

[Neomalthusian]

The goal is adequate basic healthcare at a reasonable cost.

What type of cost do you mean? Cost to the patient? Or total cost of the patient's care? Or overall costs to policyholders and taxpayers to fund the healthcare needs of the oldest and sickest?

Cost could mean any number of things, and bad arguments abound in the healthcare debate because of overlooking the fact that "reasonable cost" to a given patient is not necessarily a reasonable cost of a procedure, or a reasonable cost to be incurred by others.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Errr I have a congenital heart defect called isolated left ventricular non-compaction.

Treatment for patients with IVNC should be directed at the management of left ventricular systolic impairment where present; the detection, treatment and prevention of arrhythmias; and the prevention of systemic embolic events [3,4]. In addition to treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, β-blockers and, where appropriate, diuretics and/or digoxin, all patients with IVNC should be screened annually with 24-hour electrocardiogram recordings and considered for long-term prophylactic anticoagulation with warfarin. The high incidence of sudden death reported in patients with IVNC has prompted some authors to advocate a strategy of "early" automated implantable cardiodefibrillator implantation [3]. The role of biventricular pacemakers in this population remains unclear. Finally, where pharmacological therapy fails to halt the progression to cardiac failure, heart transplantation should be considered [4].
Initial data from Europe and America reported a 4- to 6-year combined mortality or transplantation rate of ~50% to 60% [3,4] although recent UK data indicate the prognosis may be more favourable [7]. Our patient responded well to the introduction of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition, beta-blockade and warfarin anticoagulation but is currently being considered for cardiac transplantation.
Journal of Medical Case Reports | Full text | Isolated left ventricular non-compaction, an unusual cause of heart failure: a case report

Welcome to my world.

Noted. Not the segment of the population I'm referring to.

80% of chronic disease are caused by or complicated by lifestyle choices. Imagine if all those chronic care resources, emergency resources, etc didn't have to be expended on the obese smoker who can't understand why they need ten meds and constant ER visits and instead could be focused on those that have disease for reasons other than lifestyle....