Yes, but part of the problems is my BS degree in psychology. I'm not using it currently, but rather working at my Alma mater at a restaurant in the student union, because I can't seem to find work in my degree field for the last 6 years, with no funds to get a MS. We got into it about him doing his clinic hours and completing the program and during that dispute, he said, "You have a degree, but it is worthless and not doing you any good." My trying to point out to him that his schooling maybe more worthwhile and more in demand than mine has been didn't encourage him any. He seems more than just discouraged at this point, due to the squeeze. My other son was going to go into medical assisting until he got into some trouble. He too would have had a better chance of doing better than I have, if he hadn't screwed up in the process, but my older son did not bring that up as an example during our little disagreement (and it was a small one), probably because he knows his little brother is a very bad example. I guess he felt he had a stronger argument using my education as an example. He also forgets, I'm nearly 47 y.o. too (will be in a couple of days, at least) and potential employers in the a given psychology area may feel my education is outdated and even worse given I've not been able to find another job in the field for 6 or 7 years now. Since massage therapy and psychology are two different areas and he's 24 too, his reasoning and logic breaks down in the end.Mriana-I also hope it is lucrative for my son too. He still has clinic hours to do and is getting very discouraged, in part due to finances. He got student loans to pay for it and has found he's over his head now.Well a little discouragement never hurt nobody. He's gotta hang tough. Tough times these days. Really. There's lot's of articles out nowadays about the cost of education. How youth have to get in debt for 20-30 years just to get a degree they may never use. That massage therapy sounds like a lock though. Health care and care giving seem to be a steady growth industry. How ironic this conversation is, in this thread. On a few levels. Regular people are getting squeezed.....
I think they should be able to opt out of some things. Alternative treatments that don't have any scientific evidence, for one.Even then, I think people should have freedom of choice. A holistic dr who uses both is better than one who is completely alternative, in part because a holistic dr uses both scientifically proven methods and methods still needing tests to prove their efficacy and usefulness. However, if s/he used both at the same time, it would be difficult to prove the alternative was effective. I have to disagree with you here Mariana. If we begin allowing any treatment that someone finds helpful there will be no limits. For every treatment whether its alternative or otherwise there is someone who will testify to its effectiveness no matter how crazy it is. Using anecdotal reports of effectiveness is deeply flawed measuring stick for inclusion into any health plan. CAM medicine is problematic for all sorts of reasons that I don't have the time to go into here but take a look at some of MacKenzie's postings on this for a detailed analysis of the harms of alt med. At a minimum, any treatment that is covered by a plan we all pay into should have to meet basic criteria of science based medicine or we will soon have run away costs covering nutty therapies from every end of the spectrum. Anyone who is bored with their life could open a CAM "clinic" and use "crystal energy" or "Pyramid power" to treat patients all while being reimbursed by the public.
I partly agree and disagree, Macgyver. What I was talking about does have scientific backing and is being researched as a potentially therapeutic part of a whole OT and/or PT plan. I wasn’t talking about back cracking or supplements or even “crystal energy” as being covered though.
I think they should be able to opt out of some things. Alternative treatments that don't have any scientific evidence, for one.If you want to use (S)CAM 'treatments', it should come out of your own pocket, just as you did before that awful 1990s law was passed.
I partly agree and disagree, Macgyver. What I was talking about does have scientific backing and is being researched as a potentially therapeutic part of a whole OT and/or PT plan. I wasn't talking about back cracking or supplements or even "crystal energy" as being covered though.They've been 'investigating' a whole lot of crap as being potentially therapeutic for 30 years at the Burzynski clinic. Tricking desperate people out of their money is apparently a 'sound' business practice. The government has set aside billions to see if there are any efficacious CAM treatments.....which turned out to be a total waste of money, time and resources...and yet they continue. This money could be better spent elsewhere.
We don’t use massage therapy on our preemies where we work. No proof of efficacy, and personally, I can see it as being harmful.
I don’t need a degree in agriculture to know that water is good for growing things. And I don’t need scientific studies to prove that I would feel a damn sight better if I had weekly full body massages.
I don't need a degree in agriculture to know that water is good for growing things. And I don't need scientific studies to prove that I would feel a damn sight better if I had weekly full body massages.That may be true but we would all feel a lot better if we had sex regularly, a fancy car in our driveway, a three day weekend every week, and a monthly trip to the bahamas but I don't think we should be paying for those things with health insurance just because they make us temporarily feel better. Where do we draw the line. Are we gong to pay for anything that makes us feel better?
We don't use massage therapy on our preemies where we work. No proof of efficacy, and personally, I can see it as being harmful.Might as well stop PT and OT too and put the therapist out of work, because I can do that on my own damn time. Can't see the proof of efficacy in paying for that when one can do it themselves. No sense in paying for it.
Might as well stop PT and OT too and put the therapist out of work, because I can do that on my own damn time. Can't see the proof of efficacy in paying for that when one can do it themselves. No sense in paying for it.Miriana some of what OT and PT does can be done on your own and in fact the ultimate goal is to get you to a point where you can do it at home. You misunderstand what they do though if you are implying that anyone can do these treatments on their own from the start. OT and PT require a good knowledge of anatomy and physiology. If you try to design your own PT program without the proper training your'e as likely or more so to injure yourself further rather than improve your condition.
Might as well stop PT and OT too and put the therapist out of work, because I can do that on my own damn time. Can't see the proof of efficacy in paying for that when one can do it themselves. No sense in paying for it.Miriana some of what OT and PT does can be done on your own and in fact the ultimate goal is to get you to a point where you can do it at home. You misunderstand what they do though if you are implying that anyone can do these treatments on their own from the start. OT and PT require a good knowledge of anatomy and physiology. If you try to design your own PT program without the proper training your'e as likely or more so to injure yourself further rather than improve your condition. No, I'm just saying that sports med probably shouldn't be covered since many people are so picky about things or maybe having insurance more individualized to cover those who participate in high risk things [for injury] such as sports, which would probably including massage therapy, but the employer shouldn't be the one making such decisions for his employees. You'd be surprised just how much anatomy and physiology those going into massage therapy have to learn. It's quite a bit or at least the program my son is about to finish.
Its an interesting point you bring up Mariana. Ive heard similar arguments made for other things too such as fertility treatments. Technically infertility does not affect your health and since under-population is clearly not a problem its hard to argue that this is a necessary service. Others may disagree obviously but these sorts of arguments can be made for many treatments. Whatever system we come up with we will have do decide on a set of basic services that everyone should have access to and perhaps a set of optional services for which coverage could be purchased separately if so desired.
I suspect there would be a great deal of disagreement among the population as to what services are basic and necessary and what ones should be optional and in all likelihood reason will not guide the outcome.
Its an interesting point you bring up Mariana. Ive heard similar arguments made for other things too such as fertility treatments. Technically infertility does not affect your health and since under-population is clearly not a problem its hard to argue that this is a necessary service. Others may disagree obviously but these sorts of arguments can be made for many treatments. Whatever system we come up with we will have do decide on a set of basic services that everyone should have access to and perhaps a set of optional services for which coverage could be purchased separately if so desired. I suspect there would be a great deal of disagreement among the population as to what services are basic and necessary and what ones should be optional and in all likelihood reason will not guide the outcome.IMHO, preventive medicine should be covered and if there is a problem, such as cancer or diabetes, treatment for it covered also. However, this leads to the question of Women's Health Care. Sometimes termination of a pregnancy is not optional, but necessary for the mother's health and/or life. Therefore, people would still argue even about preventive care and treatments, as you pointed out, so I think it boils down to individualized preventive medicine and treatment, which is the long run could be better or worse, esp economic wise. Having a one size fits all plan won't work, esp when we get down to women's health v men's health and in some cases, illnesses such as sickle cell. Health insurance is a very tricky thing when it comes down to humans, because, let's face it, we aren't all alike and we all don't take the same interests that could affect our health- such as football. I never liked the sport, but some people do and it can cause everything from pulled muscles to broken bones to concussions, then again, so can roller skating. The point is, even if we eliminated things like sports medicine, we can't eliminate Women's health or specific illnesses like Sickle Cell. There has to be some sort of compromise though and where do we begin? Secondly, not every black person is prone to Sickle Cell and a small percentage of white people can get it, but is it necessary for everyone to be insured for such an illnesses? Do those of us with American Indian heritage pay more because we are prone to diabetes? Men don't get pregnant, but are prone to male specific cancers, just as women are. Do women pay for coverage of male conditions and do men pay for coverage of women's conditions? Do athletes pay for sports oriented insurance? Should treatment for substance abuse be covered? Should mental illness be covered, even when one doesn't have a mental illness or could just take something like Zoloft for depression, only seeing a physician? The list goes on and on and arguments could be made for everything. BTW, some people would argue that mental health treatment isn't necessary or effective too. Granted, many things, such as questionable treatments and proven not to work treatments, aren't necessary for anyone, but some things are necessary for some people.
Its an interesting point you bring up Mariana. Ive heard similar arguments made for other things too such as fertility treatments. Technically infertility does not affect your health and since under-population is clearly not a problem its hard to argue that this is a necessary service. Others may disagree obviously but these sorts of arguments can be made for many treatments. Whatever system we come up with we will have do decide on a set of basic services that everyone should have access to and perhaps a set of optional services for which coverage could be purchased separately if so desired. I suspect there would be a great deal of disagreement among the population as to what services are basic and necessary and what ones should be optional and in all likelihood reason will not guide the outcome.How is it handled in the countries with the best health care systems? The ones where the most people get decent health care. France seems to be at the top of many lists while the US is way down behind a lot of much poorer countries. We could learn something by studying their systems and emulating them. Where there's a will, there's a way. Lois
I think they should be able to opt out of some things. Alternative treatments that don't have any scientific evidence, for one.Even then, I think people should have freedom of choice. A holistic dr who uses both is better than one who is completely alternative, in part because a holistic dr uses both scientifically proven methods and methods still needing tests to prove their efficacy and usefulness. However, if s/he used both at the same time, it would be difficult to prove the alternative was effective. For example: My older son is studying to be a massage therapist and according to him massage is an effective treatment for premie babies. I did some research and it's not so much the massage, but rather the human touch, which humans thrive on and even need, because we are born social animals. That in conjunction with scientifically proven treatments could be a boost for babies born premature. It won't trigger lung development or alike, but it does give that social aspect that humans need from birth. In sports injuries, massage allegedly stimulates blood flow to the injured area, thereby assisting in helping it heal and currently used for some people, with certain injuries, in conjunction with physical and rehabilitation/occupational therapy, as well as any medications the doctor Rx. In his chosen field of study, massage therapy isn't the only treatment patients are given, but it is combined with other treatments. Before any massage is given, he inquires about the person's medical history and any meds they maybe on. If there is a potential for a clot, then massage therapy isn't an option, from what I understood. Certain or recent neck injuries could also exclude them from massage therapy too. I was skeptical at first, concerning his chosen field, but then I did some research, beyond the information the school gave out to students and their parents. Of course, when he started at age 20 (now 24) my hands were a bit tied to stop him, if I didn't agree, but instead of arguing with him, I did research on massage therapy, even on massage therapy v a spa massage, which apparently are two different categories of massage. My point is, some [alternative] treatments are therapeutic and in conjunction with proven methods, could lead to new viable treatments. I don't think we should exclude all things that are considered "alternative". Even allegedly proven physical and rehabilitation therapies aren't necessarily good and medical professionals have been known to change their minds about certain OT and PT methods. Apparently, massage therapy is becoming a more acceptable course in conjunction with PT and OT and not just something for spas (which is a different kind of massage with a different course of study). Spa doesn't have much by way of study of muscles and bones. Therapeutic massage studies muscles and bones. Whatever the case, my son does give good massages, providing temporary relief, at least with muscles full of stress. I still have some skepticism, but I'm still researching it too. However, the field he is going into is not the end all and be all treatment for sports injury or any other injury patients or even for premature babies. There's more to their treatment than that, but it seems to be receiving attention and is becoming part of the Tx within some patients OT and/or PT.AFAIK, massage has long been used as part of physical therapy in injury recovery, so is not really considered alternative treatment. Regarding it's use with premature babies, I have no idea. There is definitely validity to massage in physical therapy, though.
We don't use massage therapy on our preemies where we work. No proof of efficacy, and personally, I can see it as being harmful.Wejj, there is this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2844909/
Also, a small number of studies “on the benefits of massage therapy for infants less than 6 months of age (and were not pre-term or underweight) found tentative evidence of benefit for mother-infant interaction, sleeping and crying, and on stress hormone levels.”
I guess my point is that it is clear to anyone who has undergone regular massage treatments that it has positive health benefits, even for people who are already healthy. As McGyver points out we can’t expect medical coverage of massage treatments, even applied by or under the direction of medical practitioners since the mechanisms by which it works or which specific maladies might be positively effected is not well known and documented.
But I think that this points to another problem with our medical care system. Massage therapy is an example of a potentially viable and efficacious treatment for various disorders, but there is a dearth of research to examine and verify this. Meanwhile there is extraordinary amounts of research going on constantly in regards to pharmaceuticals.
We don't use massage therapy on our preemies where we work. No proof of efficacy, and personally, I can see it as being harmful.Wejj, there is this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2844909/ Thanks for the link Tim. The study is interesting. I can certainly think of a number of non-magical ways in which massage may benefit babies since its possible it might stimulate respiration and other biological processes which could lead cause a baby to eat more. I'm not familiar with the journal that was cited so its not clear to me how rigorously these studies were examined. It might be interesting to know whether babies that were massaged do any better than a cohort that was simply held and cuddled by mom for an equivalent period of additional time. I have a suspicion that the outcome might be the same. Acupuncture studies have often shown similar results when sham acupuncture is compared to treatments given by "trained " acupuncturists. Its often just the touch that is important rather than the actual specifics of how it is done.
I'm assuming that our middle class is largely composed of persons who would be classified as employees rather than employers. But with that assumption, is it just a coincidence that our middle class (which is in severe decline http://www.infowars.com/84-statistics-that-prove-the-decline-of-the-middle-class-is-real-and-that-it-is-getting-worse/ ) was so much better off when there existed a countervailing Communistic world power?The American middle class became affluent primarily because of the rise of the assembly line. Industrial revolution and stuff. Ok, but didn't Unions come out of that, and was the middle class not better off when Unions were strong?
I'm assuming that our middle class is largely composed of persons who would be classified as employees rather than employers. But with that assumption, is it just a coincidence that our middle class (which is in severe decline http://www.infowars.com/84-statistics-that-prove-the-decline-of-the-middle-class-is-real-and-that-it-is-getting-worse/ ) was so much better off when there existed a countervailing Communistic world power?The American middle class became affluent primarily because of the rise of the assembly line. Industrial revolution and stuff. Ok, but didn't Unions come out of that, and was the middle class not better off when Unions were strong? Yes everything in all of this is true. the assembly line, the countervailing force of Communism, the Unions. The other strong force in my opinion is when our country was more Nationalistic, economically and socially. All of this here is encapsulated in a stronger sense of nationalism. We are losing this identity...and with it we are losing much more than we know. Although we are feeling the effects as noted above. We identify the symptoms, we can't and/or won't identify the problem.