....
We all know about ADD, right? How could we NOT know about it? Attention Deficit Disorder has gotten more ink and airtime in the last decade than the Clintons... you probably remember me venting about this made-up malady - the darling of those pseudo-scientists, the psychiatrists, and their handmaidens, the psychologists. But in case you really don't know where I stand on the issue (however remote that possibility is), here's a brief refresher:
I think for the most part, ADD is bogus. It's a made-up illness foisted on perfectly normal children unlucky enough to have been born awash in the confluence of an age of sensory overload from too many TV, computer, and video game screens - and also an age of no-fault, guiltless parenting spawned by the "I'm OK, you're OK" sensibilities of the boom- boom, feel-good hippie age. Any questions?
But there's a new spin on the ADD soap opera. It seems that the drug giants aren't making enough of a profit from the millions of kids popping their Ritalin and other pills - or selling them in the schoolyard...
Now they've set their sights on adults, too. According to CNN.com, Eli Lilly and company - holders of the patent on Strattera, the only drug approved by the FDA for the treatment of adult ADD - has embarked on a national advertising campaign to "raise awareness" of the prevalence of the condition. That's all fine and dandy, but the list of symptoms to be on the lookout for reads like everyday life! In a thinly veiled attempt to "screen" (see also: recruit) potential patients, the ads ask questions like:
"... Are you distracted by activity or noise around you? How often do you feel restless... ?" And my personal favorite: "Do you have difficulty waiting in line?"
Seriously, who doesn't at times feel distracted and restless? And who LIKES waiting in lines? Do you go to the bank on a crowded Friday afternoon and say to yourself: "YES - a huge line! I can't WAIT - but I guess I'll just have to!" If you do think this, ADD drugs aren't the ones you need, my friend...
The problem is two-fold. First, I think it's wrong to even offer direct-to-consumer marketing of drugs of any type - it just invites people with no medical knowledge or education to self-diagnose. Second, the "symptoms" sound just like the universal conditions of modern life - leading people to mistakenly believe that if they feel perfectly normal (scattered, impatient, irritable, and restless), they must be SICK!
But what can we do about it? Marketing is the only unstoppable force in the universe nowadays...
Bottom line: Don't be tricked by slick sales pitches into believing the run-of-the-mill stress you're feeling signals a "disorder," or that drugs will somehow make you immune to the trying experiences of everyday life. The antidote for routine annoyances is a healthy perspective on life -- not an open-ended prescription.
Don't we already pay enough for our "unhealthy" lifestyles?
I was thinking the other day about why I am so staunchly opposed to most types of governmental intervention in our lives, especially when it comes to our health. And I concluded that mine isn't so much a philosophical objection as a near-absolute certainty that they'll just botch up whatever they get involved with. Honestly, if I thought our elected officials would always act solely in the best interests of the citizens they supposedly serve, I'd be all for bigger, stronger government. But...
Such a perfect world does not exist, and the bureaucrats almost universally don't allow our best interests to govern them while they're governing us. It's a sad truth, but an immutable one, it seems. Which is why it's such a shame that the latest brainstorm to come out of the Department of Health and Human Services can't actually work - because a lot of people are likely to think it's a pretty good idea. And it is, in theory.
Basically, the plan is for the government to "incentivize" health insurance carriers to give people with healthier lifestyles cheaper rates on their health insurance coverage. In other words, the healthier you live, the less you'll pay for insurance. In principal, this sounds pretty fair, doesn't it? Sure it does.
So why won't it work, you ask?
Because the government's idea of "healthy" living isn't really healthy at all - and it's getting even less so with every passing year. Need proof? Take blood pressure guidelines, for example. Just five or ten years ago, 140/90 was considered perfectly acceptable - yet 120/80 is viewed as HIGH nowadays! And don't get me started on the established thinking about cholesterol...
The long and short of it is that if the government is allowed to set the standards for healthy living that we're all going to be bound by in the eyes of our insurers, we'll be paying through the nose if we aren't soy-swilling, tofu-munching marathoners who'd never dream of drinking a martini or enjoying a fine cigar.
If this becomes public policy, the end result won't be healthy people saving money on insurance - but "unhealthy" (see also "normal") people being swindled for their so- called "vices."
Just food for thought!
Cheers,
D
We all know about ADD, right? How could we NOT know about it? Attention Deficit Disorder has gotten more ink and airtime in the last decade than the Clintons... you probably remember me venting about this made-up malady - the darling of those pseudo-scientists, the psychiatrists, and their handmaidens, the psychologists. But in case you really don't know where I stand on the issue (however remote that possibility is), here's a brief refresher:
I think for the most part, ADD is bogus. It's a made-up illness foisted on perfectly normal children unlucky enough to have been born awash in the confluence of an age of sensory overload from too many TV, computer, and video game screens - and also an age of no-fault, guiltless parenting spawned by the "I'm OK, you're OK" sensibilities of the boom- boom, feel-good hippie age. Any questions?
But there's a new spin on the ADD soap opera. It seems that the drug giants aren't making enough of a profit from the millions of kids popping their Ritalin and other pills - or selling them in the schoolyard...
Now they've set their sights on adults, too. According to CNN.com, Eli Lilly and company - holders of the patent on Strattera, the only drug approved by the FDA for the treatment of adult ADD - has embarked on a national advertising campaign to "raise awareness" of the prevalence of the condition. That's all fine and dandy, but the list of symptoms to be on the lookout for reads like everyday life! In a thinly veiled attempt to "screen" (see also: recruit) potential patients, the ads ask questions like:
"... Are you distracted by activity or noise around you? How often do you feel restless... ?" And my personal favorite: "Do you have difficulty waiting in line?"
Seriously, who doesn't at times feel distracted and restless? And who LIKES waiting in lines? Do you go to the bank on a crowded Friday afternoon and say to yourself: "YES - a huge line! I can't WAIT - but I guess I'll just have to!" If you do think this, ADD drugs aren't the ones you need, my friend...
The problem is two-fold. First, I think it's wrong to even offer direct-to-consumer marketing of drugs of any type - it just invites people with no medical knowledge or education to self-diagnose. Second, the "symptoms" sound just like the universal conditions of modern life - leading people to mistakenly believe that if they feel perfectly normal (scattered, impatient, irritable, and restless), they must be SICK!
But what can we do about it? Marketing is the only unstoppable force in the universe nowadays...
Bottom line: Don't be tricked by slick sales pitches into believing the run-of-the-mill stress you're feeling signals a "disorder," or that drugs will somehow make you immune to the trying experiences of everyday life. The antidote for routine annoyances is a healthy perspective on life -- not an open-ended prescription.
Don't we already pay enough for our "unhealthy" lifestyles?
I was thinking the other day about why I am so staunchly opposed to most types of governmental intervention in our lives, especially when it comes to our health. And I concluded that mine isn't so much a philosophical objection as a near-absolute certainty that they'll just botch up whatever they get involved with. Honestly, if I thought our elected officials would always act solely in the best interests of the citizens they supposedly serve, I'd be all for bigger, stronger government. But...
Such a perfect world does not exist, and the bureaucrats almost universally don't allow our best interests to govern them while they're governing us. It's a sad truth, but an immutable one, it seems. Which is why it's such a shame that the latest brainstorm to come out of the Department of Health and Human Services can't actually work - because a lot of people are likely to think it's a pretty good idea. And it is, in theory.
Basically, the plan is for the government to "incentivize" health insurance carriers to give people with healthier lifestyles cheaper rates on their health insurance coverage. In other words, the healthier you live, the less you'll pay for insurance. In principal, this sounds pretty fair, doesn't it? Sure it does.
So why won't it work, you ask?
Because the government's idea of "healthy" living isn't really healthy at all - and it's getting even less so with every passing year. Need proof? Take blood pressure guidelines, for example. Just five or ten years ago, 140/90 was considered perfectly acceptable - yet 120/80 is viewed as HIGH nowadays! And don't get me started on the established thinking about cholesterol...
The long and short of it is that if the government is allowed to set the standards for healthy living that we're all going to be bound by in the eyes of our insurers, we'll be paying through the nose if we aren't soy-swilling, tofu-munching marathoners who'd never dream of drinking a martini or enjoying a fine cigar.
If this becomes public policy, the end result won't be healthy people saving money on insurance - but "unhealthy" (see also "normal") people being swindled for their so- called "vices."
Just food for thought!
Cheers,
D
Last edited:
