Ulcerative colitis (Colitis ulcerosa, UC) is a form of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Ulcerative colitis is a form of colitis, a disease of the intestine, specifically the large intestine or colon, that includes characteristic ulcers, or open sores, in the colon. The main symptom of active disease is usually constant diarrhea mixed with blood, of gradual onset. Because of the name, IBD is often confused with irritable bowel syndrome ("IBS"), a troublesome, but much less serious, condition. Ulcerative colitis has similarities to Crohn's disease, another form of IBD. Ulcerative colitis is an intermittent disease, with periods of exacerbated symptoms, and periods that are relatively symptom-free. Although the symptoms of ulcerative colitis can sometimes diminish on their own, the disease usually requires treatment to go into remission.
i'm convinced there is no such thing as a "disease," only temporary conditions
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
It's the Libertarian thing to do.
I actually feel a bit sorry for this kid. It's easy to be idealistic (even with bad ideals) when you're young and have never faced hardship. Perhaps he'll finally change his mind in a few years, when his credit is still busted because of his medical bills going into collections.
And I can't help but chuckle that one of the comments is suggesting a class action lawsuit. Don't they realize that's what those evil trial lawyers do? Wouldn't that be something that would be severely curtailed if we had tort reform?
It kind of depends. Many libertarians look to the courts as a remedy to malfeasance. They'd rather have courts clogged with endless lawsuits than the government enforcing regulations.
The reason they still don't have their "free state" is that they can't all be free riders off each other.
don't hate on my childish smugness, hate the game. pinko Seattle losers.
No one is sure yet what causes it (though diet doesn't seem to be a factor) and there is no cure, other than a complete colectomy. Some of the luckier colitis sufferers are able to achieve remission via various immunosuppressant drugs, others respond well to mesalamine, an anti-inflammatory sulfa drug, taken during flareups in milder cases. Prednisone can also reduce inflammation, but has some drastic side effects, like leaching calcium from your bones. The immunosuppresants have their own downsides - my sixty year old aunt with chronic colitis recently was diagnosed with leukemia, skin cancer and lung cancer all at once, possibly at least partly due to having her immune system practically shut off for half her life. Colitis also puts the sufferer at risk for colon cancer for obvious reasons, even with treatment.
My wife has medical insurance, thank God, but we are still drowning in bills. She hasn't responded to any tried treatment (the immunosuppresants made her violently ill) and has been basically on a cycle of trying for remission with mesalamine and tapered prednisone over many months until the disease flares and she has to increase her dosage again. The prednisone makes her fragile, injury prone, nervous, imsomniac, depressed and achy -- I've seen her weight fluctuate scarily over short periods of time, seen her moods become unstable, watched her be unable to eat without pain, watched her take fistfuls of pills every day; things like calcium supplements and antidepressants that she has to take to deal with the prednisone side effects. Her doctor keeps urging the colectomy surgery, which she does not want to go through.
Say what you want about "Obamacare", but at least my poor wife doesn't have to be terrified about leaving or losing her current job, because she doesn't have to be afraid of her preexisting condition keeping her from being covered.
@22, No, he's being Christian Science. Literally, and possibly satirically, but probably earnestly, since he joined just to say that. Satirists just don't have the motivation earnest people do, or pictures of their beautiful selves next to rocky waterfalls (no offense, Faun, love ya, and you're extremely pretty).
Also nice comment by Fox in Socks @19 about how sponging off Canada isn't contradictory to the libertarian spirit. Libertarianism is as much a governing philosophy as Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme was an investment strategy and starvation is a diet.
Life is a temporary condition. In the case of "healthcare libertarians" not nearly temporary enough.
Libertarians wouldn't want to come to Canada for medical treatment: We insert a Socialist chip into everyone during surgery, much like gay people do when they're recruiting on God-fearing campuses nationwide...beware.
I've never understood that fake Winston Churchill quote -- you know, the one about liberals before and after age 30. Do people really lose compassion for the rest of the human race just because they buy a house and have kids? Hell, my grandfather is 90 years old, and he still thinks that single-payer healthcare is the way to go.
If there is any correlation between political views and aging, it's simply that age makes you less idealistic. But you don't have to be a dyed-in-the-wool "-ist" to think that we could be doing healthcare better. Hell, Brazil has universal healthcare, and their per capita GDP is 20% of ours. If they can afford it, then goddamnit, so can we.
@26 - Not Christian Science. Nothing about that says Christian Science. None of the buzz words, and I've never once heard anything about eating raw foods.
Ayn Rand, born "Alisa Rosenbaum"
"Rand" Paul... a truly dizzy, disconnected non-senator, who ran an absurd campaign, promising impossible things ("Let's make 'Pi' = 3.00!"), determined to get what he wants regardless of his inanity, named after someone who used an alias to conceal her true identity.
"Rand" Paul's namesake is Alisa Rosenbaum -- her REAL name, that is.
I'll bet if "Rand" Paul knew, he would be really P.O.'d since he and his dad are on the record as being rabidly anti-Semitic.
Incidentally, it pleases him no end that you label Charles Y. Farley with the nasty epithet "Lib" -- but he prefers that you capitalize it: "LIB". It signifies that he cares at least as much about other people as he does about himself. He long ago swore off being a mean-spirited, zero-sum greed machine.
As for your other insults, Chas says, "Your mommy is calling you, so go home now, wash your mouth out with soap, then wait for the men in white coats to take you away for a little 'time-out.' "
Peter in Toronto, 38yo empliyed gay man with a health credit card that never expires and has no limit - but it could be fun to try!!!
And isn't it 'wriggle' room?
That being said, I'm really tired of hearing my fellow liberals, those to the left of me, criticizing, bitching, about right-wingers without even bothering to attempt to see where they're coming. I'm not referring to the rampant racist-sexist-homophob spectrum here, the lies and hate and fear, but the central edges, the saner criticisms- the things that draw reasonable independents into the party. The government is huge and ridiculous and powerful and scary and in need of drastic reform (what's to stop another Bush from happening?). Taxes on the middle class are a big burden on people. Utopia is not possible and we can't fix crazy, stupid, or poor no matter how hard the government tries. Socialism in its' extreme forms is crazy. We are putting people in jail for things that should not be crimes, and our military continues to commit atrocities in our name. Yet now that Obama's in charge, more and more liberals seem to be totally content with the government the way it is, which I find deeply desturbing and hypocritical. Just as I can't take the critics of Obama seriously if they are also pro-Bush, just a I can't take a "libertarian" seriously if he is anti-choice, I can't take a liberal seriously if she does not think we need a real, radical change in this country.
My best friend told me he can't sleep at night because the pain in his legs never stops. He has a degenerative disease that'll have him in a wheelchair in ten years. And he has no insurance to treat it.
You might be surprised to learn that his insurance provider stopped covering his condition immediately when Obamacare went into effect. If you outlaw discriminating against people with preexisting conditions, what do you think insurers are going to do? Reduce coverage and raise prices, that's right! Thanks to the new law, my friend is in unbearable pain, every day.
Policies can hurt real people. The lack of universal health care hurts people in tragic ways. So does universal health care. When libertarians like me oppose universal health care, it's not because we're cruel freaks who want to see people suffer. It's because we think it's the way to minimize suffering, to make medical care cheaper and more easily available. You might want to consider that not everybody agrees on the best strategy for increasing access to medical care.
Some of us are silly and blindly ideological, sure. Some of us are poorly educated and can be fooled into believing quack remedies. (That's more sad than funny, guys.) But most of us are interested in helping people.
The question is how? I think you've got a point about whether national health or insurance based, systems fail the most needy.
Maybe that means the system of medicine itself needs reform, over and above how you finance it.