4 ms·
The article makes several points about how the US medical establishment, including the US government, is doing better in this regard than NHS. It's like the In
by rootusrootus 1y ago
The article makes several points about how the US medical establishment, including the US government, is doing better in this regard than NHS.
It's like the Internet just has an allergy to saying anything nice about America, even if it's only faint praise.
- CharlesW 1y ago> The article makes several points about how the US medical establishment, including the US government, is doing better in this regard than NHS. It claims that "US government agencies are taking tick-borne disease much more seriously", and that may be their words, but I challenge you to point to actions which support them. It also doesn't mention that Trump administration actions have decreased and destabilized overall federal support environments (NIH/CDC) that fund tick-related disease research. I have a friend who's gone through a similar years-long journey with his daughter. In Silicon Valley, at least, the medical establishment spent years trying to gaslight the family about their daughter's symptoms.
- rootusrootus 1y agoI agree, much of what we knew about the USG position on health care research has recently been called into question, and so it may already be that the author's contention is untrue. But on the flip side, the problem they describe with the NHS -- namely, that no means no, is less likely to happen in the US. And I think suggesting that there is just one 'medical establishment' in Silicon Valley is painting with far too broad a brush. Our problem is probably more with particular insurance companies (UHC is so egregious, it is hard to be surprised that so many people were not horrified when their CEO was gunned down in broad daylight). But at least you can easily pick a new provider.