4 ms·

I'm always struck by the intensity with which some HN folks hate their doc - reminded of this by the number of comments invoking conspiracy theories about docs

I'm always struck by the intensity with which some HN folks hate their doc - reminded of this by the number of comments invoking conspiracy theories about docs scheduling extra appointments to bill more or push more generic drugs. Perhaps obvious but perhaps not: in the US and most EU countries I'm aware of, you can choose a new doc. You can shop around. Despite the flaws in online reviews, just as with Amazon, you can read between the lines. Choosing instead to avoid healthcare completely seems self-defeating. I'm sorry to read so many horror stories - going to the doctor even for docs (especially for docs?) can be a frustrating experience. But while you're burning down the FDA, at least shop around and find yourself a good primary care doc.

seibelj 8y ago
A rural hospital kept my grandma alive 10 extra days to milk Medicare for the maximum allotment. There is nothing American healthcare won’t do to make a buck
- rjurney 8y ago
  But your parents have control over hospice arrangements. The only thing a hospital can legally in most states do once you decide to let her die is to sedate if necessary and cut off food and let the body shut down. What gives you the idea it was a conspiracy?
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Wow, if you knew anything about how shitty our system is to dying people and their families I suspect you wouldn't be sealioning someone in GP's position.
PatentlyDC123 8y ago
For me the issue is not exactly “burning down” the FDA, but rather changing its purpose from regulatory to only advisory (and hopefully changing associated statutes). The FDA provides a very valuable service by identifying the risks associated with various food and drug. It is one thing to educate the public and say “XYZ presents risk of ABC for this specific group of consumers.” It is a very different thing to also add “therefore, consumers cannot make the decision to take on the risks associated with XYZ because the FDA (and associated governing bodies) have decided the general population should not take these risks (regardless of the overall risk level and their individual risk factors).”
- microcolonel 8y ago
  This is more or less how I've felt. There are so many high-risk behaviors which are perfectly legal, and when our right to take risks in those ways is challenged, there is generally backlash; but in the case of drugs we are legally prohibited from taking risks. I think the FDA's prohibitive authority does more to protect the interests of established pharmaceutical manufacturers, than the interests of consumers.
ElixirIsCool 8y ago
I suffered for almost 15 years with something that was supposed to be easy to fix. The medical industry incompetence and exploitation is not limited to a country. The problem is world wide.
- amelius 8y ago
  The problem is not that one given doctor can't fix an issue (which can happen). The problem is the monopoly they have on our health, preventing us to seek different solutions, get extensive tests done, etc. In the US it is easier to get liposuction than to get some basic testing done if your doc thinks it is unnecessary. For example, depression is usually "solved" by prescribing SSRIs, but if you do some research, you find that there are perhaps hundreds of possible causes for it, none of which are usually tested for.

seibelj 8y ago

A rural hospital kept my grandma alive 10 extra days to milk Medicare for the maximum allotment. There is nothing American healthcare won’t do to make a buck

rjurney 8y ago
But your parents have control over hospice arrangements. The only thing a hospital can legally in most states do once you decide to let her die is to sedate if necessary and cut off food and let the body shut down. What gives you the idea it was a conspiracy?
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Wow, if you knew anything about how shitty our system is to dying people and their families I suspect you wouldn't be sealioning someone in GP's position.

PatentlyDC123 8y ago

For me the issue is not exactly “burning down” the FDA, but rather changing its purpose from regulatory to only advisory (and hopefully changing associated statutes). The FDA provides a very valuable service by identifying the risks associated with various food and drug. It is one thing to educate the public and say “XYZ presents risk of ABC for this specific group of consumers.” It is a very different thing to also add “therefore, consumers cannot make the decision to take on the risks associated with XYZ because the FDA (and associated governing bodies) have decided the general population should not take these risks (regardless of the overall risk level and their individual risk factors).”

microcolonel 8y ago
This is more or less how I've felt. There are so many high-risk behaviors which are perfectly legal, and when our right to take risks in those ways is challenged, there is generally backlash; but in the case of drugs we are legally prohibited from taking risks. I think the FDA's prohibitive authority does more to protect the interests of established pharmaceutical manufacturers, than the interests of consumers.

ElixirIsCool 8y ago

I suffered for almost 15 years with something that was supposed to be easy to fix. The medical industry incompetence and exploitation is not limited to a country. The problem is world wide.

amelius 8y ago
The problem is not that one given doctor can't fix an issue (which can happen). The problem is the monopoly they have on our health, preventing us to seek different solutions, get extensive tests done, etc. In the US it is easier to get liposuction than to get some basic testing done if your doc thinks it is unnecessary. For example, depression is usually "solved" by prescribing SSRIs, but if you do some research, you find that there are perhaps hundreds of possible causes for it, none of which are usually tested for.