Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Other Half

ascii.textfiles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 333 posts

Re: The Other Half

#231

Post by blackflame7000 »

incompatible wrote: post #226
blackflame7000 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a false assumption to say that because socialized healthcare works in some countries, the entire scheme of capitalism is therefore inferior. There are a number of unique aspects of Human health and insurance that make it very difficult to manage using conventional capitalistic means. (Namely that a human cannot be totalled whereas an object can) However, that is not an indictment on capitalism but is instead a…

We can start by asking if capitalism is inferior at providing health care, at least. People sometimes assume that capitalism means free markets. In practice it can also mean oligopolies, monopolies, rigged systems, and scams. That may describe the US health system, propped up with government regulations and subsidies.

"In practice it can also mean oligopolies, monopolies, rigged systems, and scams" - Pure capitalism has none of those things. What you are referring to is cronyism which increases proportionally to the size of the market. Regulation should in theory be used to keep markets of sufficient size in check but it's a double edged sword. Often times regulation creates even more cronyism since only the approved players can access a communal resource or service.

Re: The Other Half

#232

Post by DaUR »

derefr wrote: post #216
DaUR wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sociologists and feminists like to chalk everything up to gender roles, as the author does here, and offer feminism as a solution, but this is dogmatic. There's a difference between taking risks (if you take risks, and bad things happen as a result, that's often outside of your control; e.g. sharks when swimming in the ocean, there's always a risk) and self-neglect, which is within your control. Self-neglect is a con…

> The real problem is self-neglect, whose root cause is low self-esteem. I'm not sure if I disagree with you, or if my perspective is this same perspective from a different angle, but: I would say that it's more that men tend to (expect to) derive their self-esteem from things they do , rather than things they are —so they invest much more time in doing things, and much less time in being things. In order to "be" bea…

> I'm not sure if I disagree with you, or if my perspective is this same perspective from a different angle, but: I would say that it's more that men tend to (expect to) derive their self-esteem from things they do, rather than things they are—so they invest much more time in doing things, and much less time in being things.

I agree, but that seems tangential to the point. It's a gender difference that has been constant throughout history, and seems arbitrary to want to change. It also doesn't fix the main problem. Making men more feminine will not make them more self-nurturing.

To illustrate, putting on makeup isn't self-nurturing, anymore than getting a haircut. It's not something that depends on your self-esteem, everyone does it. Binge-dieting is self-neglectful (the opposite of nurturing), and so obviously doesn't come from a position of high self-esteem. Being more obsessed about your appearance doesn't make you more nurturing of yourself physically. Again, women don't nurture themselves more than men. You could chalk up wives' willingness to go to the doctor as higher fear of potential negative consequences, rather than self-nourishment.

The question is how do you get men to care more about their health, remember. And changing society or "gender roles" isn't the solution.

> In order to "be" beautiful or to "be" athletic, it's usually a pre-requisite to be healthy

The assumption here is that women nurture themselves because they want to look good, I don't believe that at all. You'll nurture yourself because you'll want to do it, instinctively, without needing any willpower. A necessary condition for that is high self-esteem.

Put another way: if you want to learn better eye contact, you have two ways. 1st: practice better eye contact. 2nd: increase your self-respect. The 1st won't work. The 2nd, will, because it addresses the actual cause. I'm arguing that the same is true for men's health.

Re: The Other Half

#233

Post by DanBC »

fencepost wrote: post #204
DanBC wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He said middle-aged guys with no obvious health problems Why would anyone see a doctor unless they had a health problem? (Or wanted health advice?)

> Why would anyone see a doctor unless they had a health problem? (Or wanted health advice?) Because "sedentary middle-aged American eating a typical American diet" (possibly including "fat" as well) might as well be considered a preexisting condition all by itself, and a simple checkup may catch something that can be addressed before it becomes a hospital visit. Most notable as things to watch out for are high blood…

Your last paragraph - about men not seeing a doctor when they are in pain - doesn't seem to fit the context of people seeing a doctor when they have no symptoms.

And how many of those women needed surgery?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3679744/

Re: The Other Half

#234

Post by DaUR »

derefr wrote: post #221
eon1 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole "getting a physical" annually is purely an old school American thing anyway. I don't know anyone in my country who does this - although apparently nowadays US med associations recommended you go visit a doctor every 5 years or so if you're under 40. Still, if I walked into a doctor and said "is anything wrong with me?" with no symptoms or obvious indication that this might be so, they would probably take bl…

Personally, I kind of wish my GP was there to help me optimize my health, rather than just to diagnose illness. Like, all those dietary restrictions they give to people who've had heart attacks? Why not give them to me before I have a heart attack, so I won't ever get one? Make my life more of a hassle, so that I live longer! I want to have someone in my life who plays the same role that a dental hygienist plays a de…

> I want to have someone in my life who plays the same role that a dental hygienist plays a dentist visit, but for my general physical health.

You better not expect doctors to be that. Most of them still believe cholesterol causes heart disease, for example, or that you need 50% carbs in your diet.

Re: The Other Half

#235

Post by derefr »

DaUR wrote: post #232
derefr wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real problem is self-neglect, whose root cause is low self-esteem. I'm not sure if I disagree with you, or if my perspective is this same perspective from a different angle, but: I would say that it's more that men tend to (expect to) derive their self-esteem from things they do , rather than things they are —so they invest much more time in doing things, and much less time in being things. In order to "be" bea…

> I'm not sure if I disagree with you, or if my perspective is this same perspective from a different angle, but: I would say that it's more that men tend to (expect to) derive their self-esteem from things they do, rather than things they are—so they invest much more time in doing things, and much less time in being things. I agree, but that seems tangential to the point. It's a gender difference that has been const…

> The assumption here is that women nurture themselves because they want to look good, I don't believe that at all. You'll nurture yourself because you'll want to do it, instinctively, without needing any willpower.

That wasn't what I was trying to communicate at all. My intended meaning was that women—by wanting to look good, or to seem happy, or to put on one of the numerous other faces people expect women to present to the world—are forced to pay attention to their own bodies. At which point they will notice if-and-when they're bodily unhealthy. (And in many of the other major roles women play, they're expected to be caregivers: people who pay attention to others, and are paid attention to in turn. Women in such roles have support networks who will notice if-and-when they are unhealthy.)

Men, meanwhile, usually are expected to strive toward goals that involve paying solely external attention—and often abstract attention, to things or systems or concepts more than to people. Their attention will almost never need to be on their own bodies to achieve their goals; and nor will anyone around them (in a professional capacity) pay attention to their state of being, as long as their work is getting done.

The stereotype is at its strongest in war narratives: "valor" is ignoring the bullet in your calf and the stab-wound in your left side and marching on to finish the battle. Because, relative to winning the battle, the state of your body is immaterial. All other stories of "heroism" tend to have some form of this—the mathematician who abuses drugs to find the answer, the entrepreneur who gives a thousand sleepless nights to their cause, etc.

Put women in those roles, and the immediate evaluation (in our culture) changes from "heroism" to "self-neglect." Which tells you a lot more about how our culture thinks of men, than how it thinks of women, since the evaluation for women is clearly factual.

Re: The Other Half

#237

Post by ars »

komali2 wrote: post #107
jrwoodruff wrote: post #34

First job out of high school was working in a department store. One of the sales guys I worked with was Keith. He smoked, liked to drink and go to Disney World. After returning from a Disney World trip, he told me how he spent most of it on the hotel room floor because he 'threw his back out' and had general chest pain. Nothing excruciating, just annoying enough that he wasn't up for hours of walking. His friends tol…

Regarding insurance, I wonder if you would have gone in if you were Keith, who at 35 is working sales at a department store. He might not even have been insured.

Want to disrupt the heart attack market?

Make a small home machine that can take an EKG and tell you if everything is fine, or if you should go get checked.

Adjust it to give some false positives, but no false negatives.

Make it cost around $50, and make sure it's fully reusable (i.e. you can borrow one from a friend for a quick check).

If machine learning is not up to the task, then send the EKG to a doctor, I believe they can read them in just seconds (correct me if I'm wrong), so it should not be expensive per-person.

To simplify it, have it connect via bluetooth to a phone, so you don't need to worry about WiFi, or a display. For reliability have it store the last 10 readings, even if not connected, so it should have a start button and indicator lights.

Re: The Other Half

#238

Post by ars »

scandox wrote: post #53

In Ireland when you say "other half" you generally mean wife, husband, boyfriend, girlfriend or partner. And the No. 1 thing I thought reading this was that Rachel, whoever she is, must be a damn saint.

They say that in the US as well.

Re: The Other Half

#239

Post by elorant »

chrisper wrote: post #211
elorant wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a kidney disease while in puberty, specifically nephritis. Since then, I take a blood test every six months. It's a great habit because it can catch a lot of problems, for example diabetes, cholesterol levels, etc. Urinary tests are also very good because they can detect stones in your kidneys.

Isn't that rather expensive?

Where I live (Greece), it's like 40 euros.

Re: The Other Half

#240

Post by gpawl »

lancewiggs wrote: post #227
shanusmagnus wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't agree with this more. I'm from MN, we tend to be pretty polite and understated, assume that doctors (and other authorities) know what they're talking about. Had a friend who progressed to a heart attack in a waiting room because he didn't want to make a fuss. Make a fuss.

This was in Australia. A senior cardiologist has no motivation other than saving your life, and the symptoms were very clear. Meanwhile a stent operation is relatively trivial - as was explained later in the piece. If he'd asked for a second opinion it could very well have added enough time to make things a lot worse.

motivation doesn't imply correctness.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1373373/Study-show...

Post reply on HN