A few years ago I travelled to Vietnam in October. Anyone whose spent time in northern Vietnam or southern China knows that during this period the region is in a state of constant overcast. Probably all that pollution from coal-fired Chinese power stations. In any respect, having spent a month there backpacking in cheap $5/night lodgings I managed to pick up a fungal infection. The problem was not the accommodation, it was my inability to dry my towel in the humidity. None of the places I stayed had a balcony, and there was absolutely no sun for the whole period.
Of course prevention is the best cure. It would be preferably to ask the landlord to dry your towel on the roof, or to watch your towel. But should you contract fungus around your genitals as I did, you will find gungus stubbornly hard to get rid of. After treating it several times as required I found that it would come back next season.
According to a specialist in skin diseases the best approach is to apply 2 different treatments at the same time. Two different treatments work in different ways so the fungus can not so easily develop any defence to it. It will be killed off more quickly. Ensure that the treatments are based on different active compounds - so dont be fooled by different brand names. It might be the same compound under a different brand. My suggestion is to look at all different brands and buy the ones with the most divergent active compounds.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
Avoiding stroke
As we can see above, stroke or ‘Cerebrovascular diseases’ is the 3rd most common mode of death in the USA. Notwithstanding that heart disease and cancer are 3-4x more prevalent, the fact that 6.7% of fatalities are caused by stroke makes its avoidance even more compelling for people who have good diets, since it’s the next most likely to kill them.
You need to be careful taking statistics at face value as journalists do. You might want to consider how pertinent these statistics are to your life if you have lived a healthy life – unlike all those vile, fat Americans who can’t leave McDonalds without opening both doors. We therefore need to know to what extent these ailments are ‘bad diet related’, such that if we care about our longevity, we can focus on what’s really important, and not on what some disinterested, unhappy bureaucrat says. They haven’t got an analytical bone in their body. They will be among the first to die of heart disease…..thats karma if you ask me…..after wasting taxpayer dollars.
OK back to serious issues. Stroke is causes by a blood clot in the arteries that starves the brain of oxygen. Often strokes strike a person by surprise so its good to be aware of it, and even witnesses to a stroke can be proactive in helping their friends. Clearly there are several things that a stroke is going to cause:
1. Acute pain caused by the clot
2. Loss of brain function due to the deprivation of oxygen
Whilst onlookers can not be expected to feel the pain, they can observe symptoms like dizziness. The problem with clots is that they result in a build-up of pressure which can partially clear the clot. But without treatment the clot is likely to worsen the next time. So if the dizziness is simply attributed to ‘a bad egg’ or too much sun, a stroke victim could die without an opportunity for treatment. So to avoid death by stroke its useful if people know how to check for it. This might seem like a waste of time because its others whom will benefit – not us. All the more reason for spreading the news. A SIMPLE TEST for the onset of a stroke is to check for a Loss of bodily functioning. It may only be temporary if the clot partially clears, but its certain to clot again with greater severity if the patient does not receive treatment. The most telling sign of lost body function is lost awareness, so perform a simple 3-step test:
1. Smile Test: Ask the patient to Smile
2. Question: Ask the patient a simple question. Do they respond with clarity?
3. Energy levels: Ask the patient to raise both arms.
4. Tongue check: Ask test you can do is ask the patient to 'stick' out their tongue. If the tongue is 'crooked', or if it moves from one side or the other, this can also be an indication of a stroke.
If the patient has any difficulty with one of these tasks, call the emergency number if your country (‘000’ in the USA) and describe the symptoms to the dispatcher.
A neurologist can totally reverse the effects of a stroke if the patient is treated within 3 hours. He need not die and he need not experience any brain damage as a result of oxygen deprivation. Since a victim will likely be unsteady, its ideal if they can count of the support of peers.
Clearly too many people are dying because there is too little awareness of the ailments that kill us.
Dont be a statistic!
You need to be careful taking statistics at face value as journalists do. You might want to consider how pertinent these statistics are to your life if you have lived a healthy life – unlike all those vile, fat Americans who can’t leave McDonalds without opening both doors. We therefore need to know to what extent these ailments are ‘bad diet related’, such that if we care about our longevity, we can focus on what’s really important, and not on what some disinterested, unhappy bureaucrat says. They haven’t got an analytical bone in their body. They will be among the first to die of heart disease…..thats karma if you ask me…..after wasting taxpayer dollars.
OK back to serious issues. Stroke is causes by a blood clot in the arteries that starves the brain of oxygen. Often strokes strike a person by surprise so its good to be aware of it, and even witnesses to a stroke can be proactive in helping their friends. Clearly there are several things that a stroke is going to cause:
1. Acute pain caused by the clot
2. Loss of brain function due to the deprivation of oxygen
Whilst onlookers can not be expected to feel the pain, they can observe symptoms like dizziness. The problem with clots is that they result in a build-up of pressure which can partially clear the clot. But without treatment the clot is likely to worsen the next time. So if the dizziness is simply attributed to ‘a bad egg’ or too much sun, a stroke victim could die without an opportunity for treatment. So to avoid death by stroke its useful if people know how to check for it. This might seem like a waste of time because its others whom will benefit – not us. All the more reason for spreading the news. A SIMPLE TEST for the onset of a stroke is to check for a Loss of bodily functioning. It may only be temporary if the clot partially clears, but its certain to clot again with greater severity if the patient does not receive treatment. The most telling sign of lost body function is lost awareness, so perform a simple 3-step test:
1. Smile Test: Ask the patient to Smile
2. Question: Ask the patient a simple question. Do they respond with clarity?
3. Energy levels: Ask the patient to raise both arms.
4. Tongue check: Ask test you can do is ask the patient to 'stick' out their tongue. If the tongue is 'crooked', or if it moves from one side or the other, this can also be an indication of a stroke.
If the patient has any difficulty with one of these tasks, call the emergency number if your country (‘000’ in the USA) and describe the symptoms to the dispatcher.
A neurologist can totally reverse the effects of a stroke if the patient is treated within 3 hours. He need not die and he need not experience any brain damage as a result of oxygen deprivation. Since a victim will likely be unsteady, its ideal if they can count of the support of peers.
Clearly too many people are dying because there is too little awareness of the ailments that kill us.
Dont be a statistic!
Our personal survival kit
None of us know exactly when we are going to die, but we actually have a good idea of what we are likely to die of. For westerners, or at least persons eating a western diet, and living a sedentary western life, the 15 most common causes of death in 2004 according to the CDC Division of Vital Statistics were:
1. Heart disease 28.5%
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer) 22.8%
3. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke) 6.7%
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases 5.1%
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries) 4.4%
6. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes) 3%
7. Alzheimer’s disease 2.6%
8. Influenza and pneumonia 2.4%
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease) 1.7%
10. Septicemia 1.4%
11. Intentional self-harm (suicide)
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13. Essential (primary) hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension);
14. Parkinson’s disease;
15. Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids.
Interestingly most of these people are dying of illnesses that were caused by lifestyles that were relatively less sedentary than people are today. So might these statistics be considered normal for people whom have a more active life than normal? I actually think these statistics might be hiding something because they include people dying of age 110yo, when I think we would all like to have that choice. But aren’t we more concerned with what people are dying of ‘prematurely’? I’d like to know what people are dying of between 50-75yo, as anything over that strikes me as beyond my useful life.
It would seem incumbent upon all of us to learn how we can prevent these common causes of death, and better still helpful if we could get clear information as far as dietary advice on packaging and from health professionals, now and during schooling so good habits are adopted early. Of course some countries are already doing this…but it should be universal. Staying in the Philippines, it seems commonplace for people to eat fast food 2-3 times a day. The result is high blood cholesterol, diabetes, hypertension and likely premature death without change.
Next I will look at just one of these illnesses – stroke.
1. Heart disease 28.5%
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer) 22.8%
3. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke) 6.7%
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases 5.1%
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries) 4.4%
6. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes) 3%
7. Alzheimer’s disease 2.6%
8. Influenza and pneumonia 2.4%
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease) 1.7%
10. Septicemia 1.4%
11. Intentional self-harm (suicide)
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13. Essential (primary) hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension);
14. Parkinson’s disease;
15. Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids.
Interestingly most of these people are dying of illnesses that were caused by lifestyles that were relatively less sedentary than people are today. So might these statistics be considered normal for people whom have a more active life than normal? I actually think these statistics might be hiding something because they include people dying of age 110yo, when I think we would all like to have that choice. But aren’t we more concerned with what people are dying of ‘prematurely’? I’d like to know what people are dying of between 50-75yo, as anything over that strikes me as beyond my useful life.
It would seem incumbent upon all of us to learn how we can prevent these common causes of death, and better still helpful if we could get clear information as far as dietary advice on packaging and from health professionals, now and during schooling so good habits are adopted early. Of course some countries are already doing this…but it should be universal. Staying in the Philippines, it seems commonplace for people to eat fast food 2-3 times a day. The result is high blood cholesterol, diabetes, hypertension and likely premature death without change.
Next I will look at just one of these illnesses – stroke.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Recent health research
A few interesting health tit-bits from watching Oprah - see www.oprah.com.
1. Role of fibre: Its important to include fibre in your diet to reduce your chances of constipation. Low fibre foods like yoghurt take in excess of 3ohours to pass through the body, but this is significantly reduced if you include more than 35grams of fibre in your diet per day (25g for women, 35g for men). Fibre not only regulates the flow of stool through the small intestine and bowel, but its helps to flush out toxins (that can cause colon or bowel cancer) and excess bial and sugars. The best sources of fibre are beans, bran, fruit & vegetables.
2. Importance of calcium: It has been shown that an increase in calcium in your diet helps you loose weight. Calcium is not only good for the bones, but it soaks up excess fat and secretes it. Calcium is best taken with Magnesium to improve absorption into the body, and better still if it is consumed in natural forms. eg. milk, fish, other seafood.
3. Tomatoes: If you want to protect your skin eat tomatoes. Research has shown that a protein in tomatoes called licopin results in 30% less skin damage.
4. Water: Convention has it that drinking 1.5 litres of water a day is good for your skin. Research has debunked this belief. I already thought as much because I drink very little water, and concluded that there is already plenty of water in food, and the chemical reaction that releases the energy in food results produces surplus water as well. The consequence is that I pee alot more than I drink. Tests showed that drinking water had no discernable difference of skin moisture levels or salinity. If you do strenuous exercise - thats different, you are consuming water faster than you can produce it, so when we sweat excessively, we need to replenish with water. Most foods are 40-60% water.
5. Toxins: You might have seen alot of detoxing clinics or resorts being established. Really these are alot of nonsense. Research has shown that it takes more than 10 days to reduce toxins from your body, so short internsive programs will achieve little more than a break, and perhaps a change in priorities. Toxins tend to be concentrated in fatty tissue, which means they tend to reside in the liver, brain.
1. Role of fibre: Its important to include fibre in your diet to reduce your chances of constipation. Low fibre foods like yoghurt take in excess of 3ohours to pass through the body, but this is significantly reduced if you include more than 35grams of fibre in your diet per day (25g for women, 35g for men). Fibre not only regulates the flow of stool through the small intestine and bowel, but its helps to flush out toxins (that can cause colon or bowel cancer) and excess bial and sugars. The best sources of fibre are beans, bran, fruit & vegetables.
2. Importance of calcium: It has been shown that an increase in calcium in your diet helps you loose weight. Calcium is not only good for the bones, but it soaks up excess fat and secretes it. Calcium is best taken with Magnesium to improve absorption into the body, and better still if it is consumed in natural forms. eg. milk, fish, other seafood.
3. Tomatoes: If you want to protect your skin eat tomatoes. Research has shown that a protein in tomatoes called licopin results in 30% less skin damage.
4. Water: Convention has it that drinking 1.5 litres of water a day is good for your skin. Research has debunked this belief. I already thought as much because I drink very little water, and concluded that there is already plenty of water in food, and the chemical reaction that releases the energy in food results produces surplus water as well. The consequence is that I pee alot more than I drink. Tests showed that drinking water had no discernable difference of skin moisture levels or salinity. If you do strenuous exercise - thats different, you are consuming water faster than you can produce it, so when we sweat excessively, we need to replenish with water. Most foods are 40-60% water.
5. Toxins: You might have seen alot of detoxing clinics or resorts being established. Really these are alot of nonsense. Research has shown that it takes more than 10 days to reduce toxins from your body, so short internsive programs will achieve little more than a break, and perhaps a change in priorities. Toxins tend to be concentrated in fatty tissue, which means they tend to reside in the liver, brain.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
A unexpected cost of 'universal' health care
One of the biggest threats posed by western medicine is that it is highly institutionalised, as as a result its administration is highly formalised, structured, centralised, not to mention highly political. There are benefits in this approach and there are flaws. Some of the benefits are:
1. Systematic approach to research - We can have confidence procedures are being followed
2. Collaboration among professionals - We can be confident that researchers are accountable to the extent that results and conclusions are shared (within the limits of corporate disclosure)
3. Preservation of scientific standards - That the industry preserves certain standards for procedures, disclosure and compliance.
But there are also a number of problems with this approach:
1. Standardisation, and thus the possible entrenchment and non-questioning of scientific methods
2. Rationalisation of policy to preserve the reputations of imminent representatives or to promote certain political outcomes, eg. universal vaccination.
3. An deference to authority - less 'imminent' voices closer to the coal face are ignored because peak industry bodies are pursuing different agendas
One of the greatest follies I find with scientists is the over-simplification of science to achieve certain objectives, to sell a policy to a certain audience, or a desire to draw attention to certain research. There is an attempt to draw 'universal' truths from scientific research by making <5%>
The reality is that any percentage of people whom dont respond to a treatment or drug is important, and efforts should be made by drug companies to understand why certain patients dont respond to a drug, just as they study why the vast majority do. The reason they dont is to save money, and to avoid ruining a good story with bad news. If they should find compelling reasons why their product does not work, or even worse, causes severe side effects, then they fear they might be undermining corporate profitability. True in the short term, but in the long term they will be avoiding law suits and developing a much improved understanding of their products and the conditions they are treating.
At root there is of course a desire by scientists or researchers for fame or financial fortune. This need not be a problem if:
1. There is adequate disclosure
2. There is adequate opportunity for critiquing science outcomes
3. Inferences are critiqued
One of the starkling problems I have with science in medicine is the tendency to treat all people as if they are the same. The 'sameness' that makes us human beings need not imply that our bodies behave exactly the same way when certain conditions are changed. The absence of evidence for a link between autism and certain vaccinations might not be available, but if our understanding is not sufficient to eliminate the possibility, then perhaps there is a need to either better understand the medicine or to monitor symptoms. To readily the science community evades certain knowledge that disputes their beliefs.
It is precisely because of the anti-science aspects of medical science that I dispute the desirability or safety of universal vaccination. More specifically I question the use of vaccines as long as:
1. There is inadequate understanding of the <5%>
2. There is inadequate monitoring of the possible side effects of taking medicines, whether vaccinations or otherwise
3. There are safer preventative strategies that can be adopted - even if seemingly more expensive
My concern is that there is so much that researchers still dont know about the human body. There attempt to adopt 'one size fits all' problems is not science, but statistics. We can see an obvious appeal in this strategy for pharmaceutical companies because they make money whether the treatment works or not, and they are not liable unless they are negligent in responding to signs of side effects. But are they taking adequate steps to question the effectiveness of safety of their treatments. I think we have to be particularly cautious where governments are sponsoring universal health solutions like vaccination.
History is littered with examples of universal health solutions that have backfired. The most famous example was the use of formaldehyde in the 1950s (??). It seems that the link between a vaccination and autism is shaping up as another example. I think we are being sold the benefits for the sake of corporate profits without being given adequate risk analysis (disclosure) on the risks because the research is geared to selling benefits, not protecting us from the downside.
I refer you to the following blogspot where you can order the book written by a mother of an autistic child whom questioned the underlying science that fails to draw a link between the MMR vaccine and at least some incidences of autism. Her story appeared on Oprah. See http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2007/09/jenny-mccarthy-on-oprah-vaccine-injury.html.
1. Systematic approach to research - We can have confidence procedures are being followed
2. Collaboration among professionals - We can be confident that researchers are accountable to the extent that results and conclusions are shared (within the limits of corporate disclosure)
3. Preservation of scientific standards - That the industry preserves certain standards for procedures, disclosure and compliance.
But there are also a number of problems with this approach:
1. Standardisation, and thus the possible entrenchment and non-questioning of scientific methods
2. Rationalisation of policy to preserve the reputations of imminent representatives or to promote certain political outcomes, eg. universal vaccination.
3. An deference to authority - less 'imminent' voices closer to the coal face are ignored because peak industry bodies are pursuing different agendas
One of the greatest follies I find with scientists is the over-simplification of science to achieve certain objectives, to sell a policy to a certain audience, or a desire to draw attention to certain research. There is an attempt to draw 'universal' truths from scientific research by making <5%>
The reality is that any percentage of people whom dont respond to a treatment or drug is important, and efforts should be made by drug companies to understand why certain patients dont respond to a drug, just as they study why the vast majority do. The reason they dont is to save money, and to avoid ruining a good story with bad news. If they should find compelling reasons why their product does not work, or even worse, causes severe side effects, then they fear they might be undermining corporate profitability. True in the short term, but in the long term they will be avoiding law suits and developing a much improved understanding of their products and the conditions they are treating.
At root there is of course a desire by scientists or researchers for fame or financial fortune. This need not be a problem if:
1. There is adequate disclosure
2. There is adequate opportunity for critiquing science outcomes
3. Inferences are critiqued
One of the starkling problems I have with science in medicine is the tendency to treat all people as if they are the same. The 'sameness' that makes us human beings need not imply that our bodies behave exactly the same way when certain conditions are changed. The absence of evidence for a link between autism and certain vaccinations might not be available, but if our understanding is not sufficient to eliminate the possibility, then perhaps there is a need to either better understand the medicine or to monitor symptoms. To readily the science community evades certain knowledge that disputes their beliefs.
It is precisely because of the anti-science aspects of medical science that I dispute the desirability or safety of universal vaccination. More specifically I question the use of vaccines as long as:
1. There is inadequate understanding of the <5%>
2. There is inadequate monitoring of the possible side effects of taking medicines, whether vaccinations or otherwise
3. There are safer preventative strategies that can be adopted - even if seemingly more expensive
My concern is that there is so much that researchers still dont know about the human body. There attempt to adopt 'one size fits all' problems is not science, but statistics. We can see an obvious appeal in this strategy for pharmaceutical companies because they make money whether the treatment works or not, and they are not liable unless they are negligent in responding to signs of side effects. But are they taking adequate steps to question the effectiveness of safety of their treatments. I think we have to be particularly cautious where governments are sponsoring universal health solutions like vaccination.
History is littered with examples of universal health solutions that have backfired. The most famous example was the use of formaldehyde in the 1950s (??). It seems that the link between a vaccination and autism is shaping up as another example. I think we are being sold the benefits for the sake of corporate profits without being given adequate risk analysis (disclosure) on the risks because the research is geared to selling benefits, not protecting us from the downside.
I refer you to the following blogspot where you can order the book written by a mother of an autistic child whom questioned the underlying science that fails to draw a link between the MMR vaccine and at least some incidences of autism. Her story appeared on Oprah. See http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2007/09/jenny-mccarthy-on-oprah-vaccine-injury.html.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The risks of skin cancer
I just had a check up for skin cancer from an office of the NSW Cancer Council. Take a look at their website - www.cancercouncil.com.au - you will likely see some photos of skin cancer tumors.
My doctor told me the following:
My doctor told me the following:
- Australia has the highest rates of skin cancer in the world because of the high rates of sun exposure (because of the ideal conditions for outdoors based lifestyle) and genetic reasons
- The genetic reason for high rates of skin cancer are the high ratio of Irish immigrants - the Celtic influence - in Australia
- But thats not to say you can't get skin cancer - other races are just less vulnerable
- The diagnosis of skin cancer suggests 2 peaks in the bell curve around the ages of 40yo and 75yo - the first for lifestyle reasons - the second degenerative diseases.
- The skin cancers that you have you to be particularly concerned about is melanoma. If you have any moles that are a jet black colour this is an advantage stage of melanoma and you should see a doctor immediately. They only need to be 0.5mm into the skin before they are fatal, as the cancer cells enter the blood stream.
- Clearly the best strategy is to get a check up if you have a high incidence of sun exposure, or regardless if there is any hint of Irish genes, though I suspect inter-racial gene pools might lessen the vulnerability, but I have no medical training. Anyway you should get checked up if you have black spots on you.
- You should place a reminder of your PDA to perform a self-examination every 3-4 months, where you are looking for spots than are changing colour, size of shape. They maybe blotchy, multi-coloured, and grow from weeks to months.
- In Australia, because of the high awareness of skin cancer, you can get an accurate diagnosis from your local GP. In other countries I would go to a specialist if you have a choice, at least for the first visit and if there is any question of a melanoma.
If you want more information on understanding skin cancer - take the following link http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=98.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Do you need health insurance?
I think health insurance is the biggest scam - and 30% of people are better off without it. Here are my reasons why I discourage insurance:
1. Health insurance schemes have a profit motive. They use your money to make money so they can pay you for any health costs that you MAY incur.
2. Health fund profitability: Health funds control alot of money, which means that they invest in large companies that are liquid enough that the fund can buy & sell without impacting too greatly on the stock price. For security reasons and liquidity reasons they also invest in bonds. For this reason, if you have a good understanding of investments and enjoy it, you can actually make more money than they do. But the big benefit is that if you are healthy, you dont need to pay out any costs
3. Alternative insurance: If you think about it, we confront many types of risks in our life, whether health, car, house insurance, and we all go to private enterprise. But they have a profit motive. I think it makes alot more sense to set up a fund within your own family....extended family if you are not wealthy enough to pay your own way. Try to find an independent custodian for the funds would be my strategy for extended families because there are often favourite siblings and graft. The big benefit is the money stays within the family, and you can share resources like investment ideas.
4. No subsidisation: The problem with insurance is that our risks are not all the same but insurance premiums are within your specific age category. I'm sure laws in each country prevent discrimination by insurance companies, even rational discrimination. The implication is that if you are healthy, you are subsidising unhealthy families, whether they have a genetic disposition or just dont take care of themselves with preventative care. If you subscribe to the idea of 'social harmony' and helping others, maybe you think that, but then again maybe you prefer to decide your own benefactors.
5. Knowing the downside: Its noteworthy that alot of people just dont understand their national insurance scheme, the rules, their options, and for this reason they are not in a position to make reliable judgements about the benefits of insurance. It doesnt help that health insurance schemes are so complex. That in itself is a cost, and not reading the fine print on the contract is a BIG RISK, which is what insurance is intended to protect you from. In some countries the public health system is almost as good as the private system, and in some instances or areas it can even be better. The best way is to monitor the media, but keep those horrid stories in perspective because alot of people are satisfied with their treatment.
6. Knowing your options: We are lead to believe that you are going to be hugely exposed if you dont have health insurance, but there are options. Often you are just subjected to wait lists, sometimes without even discomfort. But I think if you cant get service from a public hospital, you can always pay. If the costs are prohibitive consider going overseas or buying your medicines online (overseas). Medical care in the Philippines or India can be as good or even better than in western countries. The reason is that the best doctors in poor countries are often foreign educated and service a small 'wealthy class'. But I advise you to pay at least to go to one of the top 5 hospitals. Beds might be $40/night. Some western public insurance schemes like Japan include dental. In Australia all taxpayers must pay Medicare, which functions essentially as a tax.
7. Personal diversification: An insurance scheme diversifies people's risks. My suggestion is that you collectivise the risks within the family or among a trusted group of friends, say your college mates, and then internalise the savings. Of course our lives change, so it makes sense to have a cashing out strategy.
Anyone interested in setting up such a scheme or participating in one can contact me.
1. Health insurance schemes have a profit motive. They use your money to make money so they can pay you for any health costs that you MAY incur.
2. Health fund profitability: Health funds control alot of money, which means that they invest in large companies that are liquid enough that the fund can buy & sell without impacting too greatly on the stock price. For security reasons and liquidity reasons they also invest in bonds. For this reason, if you have a good understanding of investments and enjoy it, you can actually make more money than they do. But the big benefit is that if you are healthy, you dont need to pay out any costs
3. Alternative insurance: If you think about it, we confront many types of risks in our life, whether health, car, house insurance, and we all go to private enterprise. But they have a profit motive. I think it makes alot more sense to set up a fund within your own family....extended family if you are not wealthy enough to pay your own way. Try to find an independent custodian for the funds would be my strategy for extended families because there are often favourite siblings and graft. The big benefit is the money stays within the family, and you can share resources like investment ideas.
4. No subsidisation: The problem with insurance is that our risks are not all the same but insurance premiums are within your specific age category. I'm sure laws in each country prevent discrimination by insurance companies, even rational discrimination. The implication is that if you are healthy, you are subsidising unhealthy families, whether they have a genetic disposition or just dont take care of themselves with preventative care. If you subscribe to the idea of 'social harmony' and helping others, maybe you think that, but then again maybe you prefer to decide your own benefactors.
5. Knowing the downside: Its noteworthy that alot of people just dont understand their national insurance scheme, the rules, their options, and for this reason they are not in a position to make reliable judgements about the benefits of insurance. It doesnt help that health insurance schemes are so complex. That in itself is a cost, and not reading the fine print on the contract is a BIG RISK, which is what insurance is intended to protect you from. In some countries the public health system is almost as good as the private system, and in some instances or areas it can even be better. The best way is to monitor the media, but keep those horrid stories in perspective because alot of people are satisfied with their treatment.
6. Knowing your options: We are lead to believe that you are going to be hugely exposed if you dont have health insurance, but there are options. Often you are just subjected to wait lists, sometimes without even discomfort. But I think if you cant get service from a public hospital, you can always pay. If the costs are prohibitive consider going overseas or buying your medicines online (overseas). Medical care in the Philippines or India can be as good or even better than in western countries. The reason is that the best doctors in poor countries are often foreign educated and service a small 'wealthy class'. But I advise you to pay at least to go to one of the top 5 hospitals. Beds might be $40/night. Some western public insurance schemes like Japan include dental. In Australia all taxpayers must pay Medicare, which functions essentially as a tax.
7. Personal diversification: An insurance scheme diversifies people's risks. My suggestion is that you collectivise the risks within the family or among a trusted group of friends, say your college mates, and then internalise the savings. Of course our lives change, so it makes sense to have a cashing out strategy.
Anyone interested in setting up such a scheme or participating in one can contact me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
