Just so we are aware where a huge chunk of Medicare dollars (and therefore, taxpayer dollars) are and will be going, and what we really should be doing about it: Maybe we should've paid attention to scientists rather than politicians. The above, taken from Changing the Trajectory of Alzheimer's Disease: How a Treatment by 2025 Saves Lives and Dollars, demonstrates a real way to help save the future of our economy as opposed to a bullshit, politically motivated scheme that was hyped to save a trillion and instead will cost as much with an accompanying diminishment in the quality of our healthcare system.
Not that we have a say in the matter. Our money is stolen against our will to pay for this and we only have a tiny say once every 4 years. To bad we can't have more control.over where our money goes. I'd think our education would improve tenfold. -yuri
In the long run Obamacare will save the gov. about 200 billion dollars. Don't remember if it's annually or by decade. Either way they should take a chunk of that money and put it towards research. Also spend less on defense. Out of the ten most powerful militaries in the world one is the U.S, four are allies of the U.S. and three are friends of the U.S. The other two are Russia and China. Shouldn't worry too much.
I'm just curious. Are you implying that you don't believe in Medicare? Are you implying that we should make changes in Medicare? If so what kind of changes?
I'm implying that government spending is slow an inefficient. I'm implying that the voters should have more direct control over the channeling of money and priories. Its a pretty simple concept. If you buy something for yourself with your own money, then cost and quality are important. If you buy something for someone else with your own money, cost is important but quality is less important. If you buy something for someone else with someone else's money, then there is little concern for cost and quality. This basic concept is why government programs are so far inferior to free market versions of the same thing. Government spending is paid for by stolen tax dollars, on programs that only matter when you risk losing an election. Government spending is EXTREMELY wasteful and inefficient. -yuri
Thing is neither will happen. Federal Law prohibits most long term care associated with social programs. Even Veterans 100% medical benefits they get in retirement does not cover this. The only real way to deal with it is to plan ahead and pay the very high fee of long term care insurance. We as a people should also consider self termination or some sort of transition. We all want our Seniors it seems to live lover no matter there condition even if its a humiliating and degrading experience for them. If you knew with a absolute doubt that you were going to come down with Alzheimer's and eventually be a fraction of who you are today self termination should be a option. I know I have no interested living in a demented state. There is more to life then simply living. My Grandmother not to long ago passed away...98 years. She would of told everyone tells you your gonna live forever but no one tells you how you save enough. Her quality of life was such that she wished whatever day it was would be the day. She outlived every single one of her friends to where all she had left was family. Thats no kind of life.
So that's a yes you believe in free market healthcare instead of the current Medicare system? Do you think that seniors would be better off, worse, or the same in this kind of system? I understand government inefficiency. I was just asking for your definitive stance. If you are the dictator of America are you dismantling Medicare and reestablishing complete free market health care?
My stance is that taxes should be voluntary. The government should compete for its money like all service providers -yuri
There's thought to be a possible link between inflammation, oxidative stress and the development of dementia. In fact, a NYU study has linked Alzheimers with periodontal gum disease! See Inflammation and Alzheimer's disease: Possible role of periodontal diseases "The molecular and cellular mechanisms responsible for the etiology and pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) have not been defined; however, inflammation within the brain is thought to play a pivotal role. Studies suggest that peripheral infection/inflammation might affect the inflammatory state of the central nervous system. Chronic periodontitis is a prevalent peripheral infection that is associated with gram-negative anaerobic bacteria and the elevation of serum inflammatory markers including C-reactive protein. Recently, chronic periodontitis has been associated with several systemic diseases including AD. In this article we review the pathogenesis of chronic periodontitis and the role of inflammation in AD. In addition, we propose several potential mechanisms through which chronic periodontitis can possibly contribute to the clinical onset and progression of AD. Because chronic periodontitis is a treatable infection, it might be a readily modifiable risk factor for AD." In general, anything that brings injury to the brain's neural and/or neuroglial tissue enhances the inflammatory response in those tissues and sets the stage (to varying degrees) for for some future, long term development of dementia. But that's NOT to say that AD is "caused" by brain injury or abuse. But it is thought to be one significant factor, out of a whole host of factors. They didn't used to say that boxers got "punchy" for nothing.
Actually I've been reading that inflammation causes a shit ton of different things. There are nutritionists that think an anti inflammatory diet would grealty reduce the incidnece of chronic disease in general Its all about that kale!!! No but really. I've said this before. Cancer is caused by DNA damage. DNA damage is caused by free radicals. Free radicals are neutralized by antioxidants. Andtioxidants are found in fresh fruits and veggies. Basically we need to eat less junk and more fresh plants. Period. Its so simple. -yuri
No its not. But at the same time it is If everyone ate what tthey were supposed to, people would still get cancer and other diseases, but at a much much much lower rate -yuri
How much lower? Show me numbers from peer reviewed journal articles. How much lower? Show me numbers from peer reviewed journal articles.
Sound logic there dude! I wonder how much lower, though. A lot? As in much much lower? Or would be surprised by food playing a smaller role than we ever imagined when viewed in the context of all the other kazillion influences out there? Don't know the answer. Just wondering.
I can't give numbers. Can you? Can you link me a peer reviewed journal showing that a diet lacking in anti oxidants doesn't increase cancer risk? Are you saying we should just keep eating McDonald's and say its not our fault? Are you disagreeing with me? Do you really think our diet habbits don't cause a significant portion of cancer and diseases? Because that was my only claim. you guys are being ridiculous here -yuri
What? Yuri you've been around long enough to know that if YOU make a claim, it is YOUR responsibility to back it up. It is not my responsibility to disprove whatever comes out of your mouth as if anything you say is fact until proven false. If what you said is to have any scientific merit, you need to link a peer reviewed study that shows (i) the majority of cancer cases could have been prevented solely by proper diet, (ii) that the majority of cancer cases were caused solely by improper diet, or (iii) only a minority of cancer cases are caused by factors independent of diet. Nobody will disagree that diet is an important factor contributing to our overall health, but scientifically and biologically speaking that is FAR from what you claimed. In fact, any heritable genetic cancers (eg BRCA mutations) disproves your understanding for the basis of cancer ("Cancer is caused by DNA damage. DNA damage is caused by free radicals.)". No amount of veggies will undo an inherited mutation. No amount of veggies will correct an improperly functioning protein. I am not a cancer biologist myself, but if I were a betting man I'd say you are going to have an extremely difficult time finding such a reputable manuscript. If it did exist, it would be one of the greatest discoveries in the history of science. In which case, I'd probably have heard of it. But I could be wrong.