Here's a TRUTH.
When you think you have the flu, a doctor will rarely do a "flu test" (swab of the throat to see if you are shedding the flu virus), but rather they will do a "strep test" (a swab that will show the presence of strep). If the strep comes back negative, they assume then that you have the flu.
Why?
Because they make more money from insurance companies on the strep test then they do on the flu test. Actually, with the negotiated fees insurance companies pay on the flu test, the doctor makes FAR less on flu test than on the strep test.
Do I believe this insinuation? Yes, I do.
Doctors make very little money on healthy patients. They make very little money on cures. Rather, they make their money on treatments. So, if they instruct you on the proper ways to prevent the need for treatment, you are much less a profit center than if you contracted an ailment for which treatment was necessary. It isn't personal, it's business.
Most doctors view "preventative" visits to the doctor as nothing more than to find ways to inflict treatment (I use the word "inflict" because that what treatment is). They search for things wrong with you in order to find things to treat because THAT is where they make their profit. It is no different than when you take your car to a mechanic and they search for things to fix. They don't make their money on the "check up", they make their money on the "fix up".
Hospitals make decisions on which diagnostic equipment to buy not on what can help the patient, but on what can diagnose the most ailments to treat in the most cost effective way. Again, health does not make the hospital any money, disease and ailment does. It is one reason I give the AMA very little credibility in matters of health. Health does NOT help their bottom line.
As for your meaningless and obviously uneducated tonsils reference, you can bet your bottom dollar that if a drug was invented that treated (but not cured) tonsillitis, your doctor would NEVER require surgery. They would only promote a regiment of diet and exercise that would prevent tonsillitis if the surgery currently used was not profitable because IF you contracted tonsillitis they have no choice but to treat it, and that treatment currently means surgery. If only a drug was invented that cured it without surgery, boy they would be all over that.
Do you ever hear about the effects of diet and lifestyle on something like diabetes in public service announcements? Not likely, since the pharmaceutical makes huge profits on the treatment of diabetes. That is why a cure for cancer is unlikely in our current system...there are too many profits to be made on treatment. As long as there are huge profits to be made on treatments, cures will always take a back seat. Imagine if there was a real treatment for polio, Salk's vaccine would have never seen the light of day. If you will notice, most of the vaccines that have rendered debilitating diseases benign were founded a long time ago when profit was not as much of a concern of the medical community as was health.
Quote:
|
The surgeon isn't the person who would be treating the diabetic in the first place. Obama doesn't know what he's talking about. Someone get him a teleprompter!!!!
|
Oh boy...you need to educate yourself.
The reason the surgeon would be involved is because there is no cure for the gangrene associated with diabetes. Foot problems are a side effect of the disease, and an injury to the foot often requires amputation because there is no effective treatment for a diabetic with a foot infection. So YES, the surgeon IS the one treating the diabetic, for the only cure is surgical amputation.
Perhaps you need a teleprompter or a conservative blog to teach you some facts? We know conservative blogs rarely teach you facts...which is why you have no clue.