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

[eits]

I'm not positive, but isn't the combination you have above essentially what a D.O. (Osteopathic Doctor) is? I know they are full Doctors and can prescribe medications, but they also perform manipulations and physical therapy. Can you tell me what the differences are, from perhaps a philosophical stantpoint, between the kind of moves you perform and those of a D.O.?

Thanks.

d.o.'s are different in a big way. their philosophy started off that blockage of bloodflow to an organ = disease, whereas chiropractors started with the philosophy that blockage of nerve signal to an organ = disease. both thought that manipulation of bones would fix the problem.

however, over time, osteopaths became far more medical than manipulative.

physical therapists tend to try and restore global ranges of motion of joint segments in order to achieve full range of motion of an injured joint rather than specific range of motion. there's a huge difference. the reason is that the muscles involved in the range of motion supercede the smaller, intrinsic muscles that are extremely instrumental in the same range of motion, except with proper biomechanics. that's not to say that it's a bad thing... it's fixing part of the problem, but not the entire problem.

chiropractic is a very fractured field. many chiropractors adhere to the older philosophy that believes that there's a supernatural force within the body that heals the body once a misalignment that is blocking nerve flow is restored. there are more progressive chiropractors out there, however, that believe that although that philosophy may have merit, the bigger issue is abnormal muscle tone and joint alignment which causes degeneration and, eventually, pressure on nerves which can lead to pain, dysfunction, and, ultimately, surgical intervention that could have been avoidable. there are also chiropractors who are somewhere in between. there's a broad spectrum of chiropractors and they shouldn't be lumped together, in my opinion, and generalized. it depends on their individual philosophies.

if healthcare went the route of being universal by the government, i think a lot more research on chiropractic would be done and i think that you'd find a lot more of the chiropractors with the more ancient philosophical mindset either getting out of practice or changing their philosophies to being more progressive.

anyway, that's just my point of view.

 

[eits]

I agree, but when you have a "profession" that won't even police itself, what chance to the ever have of becoming legit and mainstream enough for public funding? Even the good chiropractors often stick to a code of silence regarding the wacky ones claiming to cure cancer with a minor adjustment.

Edit: and an important point to make is that chiropractic medicine in and of itself doesn't harm. It's when any alternative medicine is used in exclusion of better, scientifically tested and proven treatment that the harm is done.

So we need to ask ourselves if paying someone to treat a serious illness with voodoo medicine is economically viable when it probably won't work. Chiropractic should be funded only for those health issues where mainstream science has proven it is beneficial.

i can agree with most of this post. the profession doesn't effectively police itself and i think part of why is because of all the chiropractors who are out there who adhere to an antiquated philosophy. it doesn't help. it's not going to be until the scales are tipped with chiropractors who are more progressive than those who are more antiquated that the profession will end up policing itself. it's still a relatively new field of healthcare.

 

[eits]

As for chiropractic treatment having much influence on ADHD, I'm heavily skeptical of this, especially given that so little consensus can be reached regarding various aspects of the condition by psychologists and psychiatrists, who've been researching it for the past 100 years. Not to say that you need to understand why or how a treatment works in order for it to actually have an effect (look at pretty much all psychopharmacological medications), but when there are still issues in terms of diagnosis itself, it's hard to determine what it is that you're actually treating.

there hasn't been enough research done to compare the standard practices of the two fields to make any definitive claims in one direction, another, or both concurrently. so, it's hard to discredit one, another, both, or neither.

 

[eits]

I'd say the vast majority of visits to a chiropractor are unnecessary. Some proceedures can actually do more harm than good. Theres a lot of dubious claims about the benfits. Ontario doesn't cover it. Nor do they cover dental or eye exams, or any other "therapeutic" medicine. If you want it, you've gotta pay. That's why you still need health insurance. Universal healthcare only covers surgery, diagnostics, and visits to your GP. Drugs and everything else are extra and require separate insurance over and above the government mandated plan.

your first sentence could possibly be true... i don't have the data that can make that claim and neither do you. it's an opinion on something you don't know too much about (i say that with all due respect). however, the second statement is absolutely false. for example, if it were true, the malpractice insurance of chiropractors would be through the roof. however, they're not even 1/10th of medical malpractice (which is because standard medical care is the third leading cause of death in this country).

it sounds like universal healthcare in canada is kinda like a catastrophic insurance policy rather than a health maintenance and care policy.

 

[TridenT]

I go once every 3-6 months and it costs 60 bucks each time. How much is it for that hydrocodone?

The difference is that hydrocodone is almost 100% guaranteed to work. Chiropractic treatments are placebo effect and waiting over long periods of time for things to go away.

No. Anything that is not statistically proven to show significant improvement in treatment of aliments should not be used.

 

[alkemyst]

it is if you go to a DO.

 

[eits]

The difference is that hydrocodone is almost 100% guaranteed to work. Chiropractic treatments are placebo effect and waiting over long periods of time for things to go away.

No. Anything that is not statistically proven to show significant improvement in treatment of aliments should not be used.

Chiropractic care has been statistically proven to work better than medical and physical therapy intervention in the treatment and management of low back pain.

 

[Whisper]

there hasn't been enough research done to compare the standard practices of the two fields to make any definitive claims in one direction, another, or both concurrently. so, it's hard to discredit one, another, both, or neither.

There's actually been a significant amount of research in the fields of psychology and psychiatry with respect to ADHD; literally hundreds, and more likely thousands, of articles. Some of this research (a large proportion of it, actually) has focused on properly identifying the condition itself and its underlying disease processes, although more recently (with the advent of stimulant-based treatment in this population) there was a push for efficacy/effectiveness research on treatments. Thus, there's quite a cache of work showing the effects of medication and behavioral interventions in this population, both of which have been shown to be significantly effective.

Regarding the effects of chiropractic intervention on ADHD, I personally haven't seen any work on it, although that's of course not to say it doesn't exist. Personally, I don't quite see how the manipulation practiced by chiropractors would influence the purported causes or perpetuators of ADHD symptoms, but I don't argue against this possibly being due to my own ignorance of chiropractic techniques.

 

[kami333]

Chiropractic care has been statistically proven to work better than medical and physical therapy intervention in the treatment and management of low back pain.

Only in non-blinded, non-controlled studies. I have yet to see a properly designed chiropractic trial.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Can I get it to cover Viagra too?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Military insurance covers chiropractors. I've been seeing one that works out of the clinic on base although it hasn't helped with my lower back pain : (

 

[classy]

Chiropractic care medicine is good stuff. They are real doctors. I know they help diagnose and showed me how to alleviate pain in my lower back. And also explained to me how I got it.

 

[Bateluer]

Two types of people in this thread. Those who have had chiropractic treatment, and were helped by it. And those who haven't had any such treatment, and look down their noses at it. Get off your high horse.

 

[Bignate603]

Two types of people in this thread. Those who have had chiropractic treatment, and were helped by it. And those who haven't had any such treatment, and look down their noses at it. Get off your high horse.

Look two posts above yours.

Military insurance covers chiropractors. I've been seeing one that works out of the clinic on base although it hasn't helped with my lower back pain : (

Also, you can point to the large amount of data that says that says that chiropractic care has some effect on some people's lower back pain but has not been shown to have any measurable effect on many things that many chiropractors claim to be able to treat.

 

[theeedude]

If it's medically necessary, sure.

 

[SSSnail]

A chiropractor nearly killed me. This one time I had some lower back pain from sitting too long on a road trip driving so I went to the chiro. Don't know what the chiro did, but he made it worse, to the point where at one point I actually collapsed because of a sharp jolt of pain.

I went to the doctor the next day, he gave me some Vicodine, took some X-ray, told me how to avoid being hurt, how to rest properly and not agitate the condition. I'm now better because of it, but I'm afraid the chiro left some permanent damage as I'm not 100% as I was before.

My insurance right now covers 20 visits a year to chiro, I wonder if they'd cover nuru massages...

 

[eits]

There's actually been a significant amount of research in the fields of psychology and psychiatry with respect to ADHD; literally hundreds, and more likely thousands, of articles. Some of this research (a large proportion of it, actually) has focused on properly identifying the condition itself and its underlying disease processes, although more recently (with the advent of stimulant-based treatment in this population) there was a push for efficacy/effectiveness research on treatments. Thus, there's quite a cache of work showing the effects of medication and behavioral interventions in this population, both of which have been shown to be significantly effective.

Regarding the effects of chiropractic intervention on ADHD, I personally haven't seen any work on it, although that's of course not to say it doesn't exist. Personally, I don't quite see how the manipulation practiced by chiropractors would influence the purported causes or perpetuators of ADHD symptoms, but I don't argue against this possibly being due to my own ignorance of chiropractic techniques.

No, I was talking about psychiatry/psychology and chiropractic intervention.

 

[kami333]

Two types of people in this thread. Those who have had chiropractic treatment, and were helped by it. And those who haven't had any such treatment, and look down their noses at it. Get off your high horse.

I have. And I've been to acupuncture, electromagnetic massage, shiatsu, cupping, herbal medicine, etc. I grew up in Japan and my grandmother was very into alternative therapies, she went to acupuncture 3 times a week and shiatsu 2 times a week (ironic since 2 of her sons were physicians and very much against it) but she also saw a conventional physician and took conventional drugs as well.

While I don't have a problem with people seeking alternative treatments, I do have a problem with using faulty science to make false or unsupported claims.

 

[TheVrolok]

Only in non-blinded, non-controlled studies. I have yet to see a properly designed chiropractic trial.

I believe I've seen proper studies that it worked as well as traditional therapies, no better, but no worse. I'd have to find them, though.

 

[eits]

A chiropractor nearly killed me. This one time I had some lower back pain from sitting too long on a road trip driving so I went to the chiro. Don't know what the chiro did, but he made it worse, to the point where at one point I actually collapsed because of a sharp jolt of pain.

I went to the doctor the next day, he gave me some Vicodine, took some X-ray, told me how to avoid being hurt, how to rest properly and not agitate the condition. I'm now better because of it, but I'm afraid the chiro left some permanent damage as I'm not 100% as I was before.

My insurance right now covers 20 visits a year to chiro, I wonder if they'd cover nuru massages...

That sucks that that happened to you.

It's not a good sign when a chiropractor adjusts you without doing any consultation, exams, or X-rays prior to adjusting. If you ever decide to give chiropractic care a second chance, make sure you research the chiropractors in your area first.

 

[Red Dawn]

Hell no. Why would we subsidize snake oil?

If you actually had a spine getting it aligned when it's out of whack is therapeutic.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Chiropractic care has been statistically proven to work better than medical and physical therapy intervention in the treatment and management of low back pain.

No it hasn't, it has been proven to be better than placebo. Marginally.

 

[erikistired]

Exactly. Some of chiropractic medicine is good. That should be covered. Most of it is unsubstaniated snake-oil. That shouldn't be covered.

so how much will the panel of people to decide what is and isn't covered cost?

Two types of people in this thread. Those who have had chiropractic treatment, and were helped by it. And those who haven't had any such treatment, and look down their noses at it. Get off your high horse.

what if i had it and it covered up the real problem instead of fixing it, and i don't believe it's legit? what group does that put me in?

 

[shortylickens]

Military insurance covers chiropractors. I've been seeing one that works out of the clinic on base although it hasn't helped with my lower back pain : (

Yeah but only if a military doctor prescribes it. You cant just go see one on your own.
And Tricare's main job is to save money, not help servicemen. At least thats how it felt when I was still in.
The main reason they send guys to back crackers first is cuz its cheap and they dont wanna waste money on surgery until after the guy is debilitated and cant do his job.

Am so glad I got out and had a good job with real benefits.

 

[eits]

Yeah but only if a military doctor prescribes it. You cant just go see one on your own.
And Tricare's main job is to save money, not help servicemen. At least thats how it felt when I was still in.
The main reason they send guys to back crackers first is cuz its cheap and they dont wanna waste money on surgery until after the guy is debilitated and cant do his job.

Am so glad I got out and had a good job with real benefits.

lol this is true. it's part of why they'll hire pretty much any chiropractor at the v.a., even if he's horrible.

our soldiers definitely don't get the care they deserve and tricare is awful.