Arianna:
The neuroanatomy in this piece is a little off - but you're correct that essentially "the gut and the brain sum to one." When we're really feeling something, we're a lot less interested in linear, left brain thought.

And an interesting feature about the human limbic system - the amygdala in particular. There appears to be a large bundle of nerves that go from our hearts directly into the center of our limbic system - the amygdala. This, and other emerging data that point to links between our hearts and our overall "information processing systems" are sufficiently striking to have given birth to the emerging science of neurocardiology.

Unless I'm mistaken here - it would appear that we can be sent out of our linear left brains by either love or fear .... and I would highly recommend that we choose love for a change?

Posted at June 9, 2008 10:41 PM in response to Fear and Politics

Where to start? A couple of excellent posts - jono1412 and dmccanne both seem to "get it."

I've worked in healthcare for a couple of decades - specifically Integrative and functional medicine . Yes, the overall system is hugely inefficient, single-ligand/single-receptor drugs do symptom suppression and don't actually "cure" much of anything, and we're spending way too much on administrative overhead - the complexities of our reimbursement system create costs for payers, caregivers, and employers. All those costs need to be considered when looking at the potential overhead savings in a single-payer system, and we're actually much closer to spending 50 to 70% of every healthcare dollar on inefficiencies and administrative overhead.

But the major advantage to single-payer is that it would shift the economic incentives from where they are now, and not just by virtue of what that would do to the "profit" or even the "cost savings" issue.

Back around 1994, Humana published a description of their "average" Medicare profile patient. That individual "presented with 4.3 chronic illnesses and took an average of 15-18 prescription medications." The hair rose on the back of my neck when I first read that, cause ladies and gentlemen, it says "We've Failed" like nothing else I've read.

We have more than just a "too expensive" or "wasteful" problem with our current system. The real issue is that virtually all the economic incentives are directly opposed to the kinds of care that "work," i.e. prevention and the kind of long-term, dedicated treatment - generally based on a nutritional platform - to actually "resolve" or "cure" complex chronic illnesses. Private payers don't want to cover these, because a healthy patient can leave their plan and bring the benefits of good care to another payer. Our coding systems weren't set up to pay for the kind of medicine that works, nutrition and supplements aren't covered but pharmaceutical "bandaids" are. And finally, we've destroyed the relationship at the heart of healthcare that used to provide half of the horsepower needed to heal anything. And so we keep trying to throw technology and efficiency at issues for which the lack of these was never the problem in the first place.

But there is a model for single-payer care that's not on the table now ... and it would actually cover everyone, cost us less money than we're paying now, and promote responsible innovation. I'd be happy to share ... Suzie

Posted at April 14, 2008 5:35 PM in response to The Politics of Health Care Reform – Part 2

Dusty: That about sums it up ...

Posted at February 19, 2008 9:58 AM in response to McCain Campaign Banked on Taxpayer-Funded Bailout