• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Should Chiropractic "medicine" be covered by a universal healthcare?

D

DCal430

Diamond Member
If the government were to offer universal health care, should it include chiropractic "medicine" in the coverage?

Personally I think it shouldn't, if it includes alternative "medicines" like chiropractic care, then it is incline to include things like homeopathy. If people want to waste money seeing a alternative "medicine" doctor they can, but not with tax payer money.
 
Last edited:
I want 2 hour luxury massages included with my healthcare plan, by a beautiful scantily clad woman, hopefully with a happy ending.
 
I think it's funny that everyone hates on chiropractic care until they hurt their back and all traditional medicine will do is give you pain pills.
 
Pacemaker said:
I think it's funny that everyone hates on chiropractic care until they hurt their back and all traditional medicine will do is give you pain pills.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't believe in the chiropractic method curing all that ails you, but it sure as hell fixed my pinched nerve.
 
Depends on what you're talking about. For low back pain at least, chiropractic manipulation has a statistically significant (though minor) effect on patients, on the level of physical therapy at about the same cost. In that case, I don't see a problem sending a patient to a chiropractor using taxpayer money.

Now if we're talking about treating PMS or ADD, then absolutely not, as there is no reputable scientific evidence that chiropractic manipulation improves these conditions or many others that chiropractors claim.
 
Codewiz said:
Only for things where there is very CLEAR proof of efficacy(E.g. very very very very few things).
Click to expand...
Exactly. Some of chiropractic medicine is good. That should be covered. Most of it is unsubstaniated snake-oil. That shouldn't be covered.
 
People that use chiropractors keep going back to the chiropractor....so no. I'd take the gigantic bottle of hydrocodone any day
 
maybe if their primary physician sends them there (eg: not if someone is just walking in off the street for a massage)
 
dullard said:
Exactly. Some of chiropractic medicine is good. That should be covered. Most of it is unsubstaniated snake-oil. That shouldn't be covered.
Click to expand...

So I shouldn't listen to the chiro (whom I visited 1x) claiming to cure colds/flu with spinal manipulation?
 
dquan97 said:
So I shouldn't listen to the chiro (whom I visited 1x) claiming to cure colds/flu with spinal manipulation?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't take that seriously (and I wouldn't go back to that chiro). Like every profession there are some who make the rest look bad.
 
this illustrates one of many huge problems with 'universal' anything, everyone isn't going to agree what should be covered and what shouldn't, and its going to piss people off. worse of all, we are going to let the GOVERNMENT pick and choose. id rather let my dog decide.
 
dullard said:
Exactly. Some of chiropractic medicine is good. That should be covered. Most of it is unsubstaniated snake-oil. That shouldn't be covered.
Click to expand...

My main issue is that there are other treatments with the same efficacy without all the snakeoil BS.

It is how con men generally work. They start with a little piece of truth and suck ignorant people into the BS.

I really get sick of driving by chiropractic offices that have crap plastered all over their windows saying how they can treat colic, ADD, asthma, etc..... It all starts with the extremely small things it can treat with some level of efficacy. People then get sucked into thinking it can treat more.
 
As others have said, I'm all for it covering treatments for which there's solid empirical evidence of efficacy/effectiveness. If none exists, then it's up to the field and its practitioners (whether it be chiros, physicians, therapists, etc.) to conduct the research that will demonstrate efficacy.
 
Codewiz said:
Only for things where there is very CLEAR proof of efficacy(E.g. very very very very few things).
Click to expand...

Are there any? All the studies I've seen that have supported spinal manipulation have been horribly controlled and usually only looked at very limited number of patients.
 
Back pain is very difficult to treat. A cold isn't nearly as bad as back pain. I figured "Hey, if my chiropractor can get rid of my back pain, he can cure me of my cold." So I went in for an adjustment. I swear to you, my cold was gone 6 days after treatment!



I'm going back next week to see if he can treat my AIDS.
 
kami333 said:
Are there any? All the studies I've seen that have supported spinal manipulation have been horribly controlled and usually only looked at very limited number of patients.
Click to expand...

From what I understand the stuff that chiropractors do that has been shown to have some benefit is the same sort of treatment you'd get from a physical therapist. The rest is all snake oil.
 
kami333 said:
Are there any? All the studies I've seen that have supported spinal manipulation have been horribly controlled and usually only looked at very limited number of patients.
Click to expand...

There has been some studies that showed some level of efficacy for lower back pain. More than placebo.

However, the same results can be attained with physical therapy. So I see little reason to use chiropractors. However, I don't believe in telling people which therapy they should use if there are two options that do work.

Personally, I think 99% of chiropractors are the scum of the earth no better than snakeoil salesmen. I haven't seen one office that doesn't claim to treat something without any evidence to support the claim.
 
Pacemaker said:
I go once every 3-6 months and it costs 60 bucks each time.
Click to expand...

All the more reason it shouldn't be covered. Insurance ought to be there for catasrophic events that a typical person could never pay for out of pocket, not for routine, affordable office visits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top