Page 58 of 71 FirstFirst ... 848535455565758596061626368 ... LastLast
Results 1,141 to 1,160 of 1405
  1. #1141  
    Perhaps a glimpse of what will happen if the government takes over health care? The new US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines state that routine mammograms aren't necessary for women of average cancer risk in their 40s, and that women between 50 and 74 years old don't need to undergo mammograms more often than every other year. Now....as davidra will happily point out, I am not a doctor, but apparently many medical groups such as The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Cancer Society, and the AMA, are in disagreement with this.

    The task force says they aren't "saying there isn't a benefit to screening women in their 40s, but rather the benefit is small". Tell that to the woman who's future public option health plan doesn't allow the mammogram and she ends up getting diagnosed late. Her public option plan won't do her much good then....although...she might have it for free!!!!! Whooohoooo. But, that is what will happen when the government is running our health care.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  2. #1142  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I don't agree (surprised?).

    And I'm not real impressed with how your president is building the next version in the senate with 4 or 5 people behind closed doors. They'll do the same thing as before. Overload it with crap so it's 2000 pages of legal mumbo jumbo, and spring it 36 hours before it needs to go to vote.

    What happened to Obama's promise of "transparency"? He broke that promise. Gee, why do I ask when he's failed to meet or has broken almost every promise he's made so far.

    And has anyone seen Biden in like forever? What a circus this administration is. We're in big trouble, I'm afraid.

    Even though I don't agree with you on many subjects, daThomas, I've come to respect you. You're obviously a smart guy. I pray that you at some point take a real look at this administration and tally up. I believe that if you honestly looked at some of this stuff, clearly and unbiased, you'd begin to agree that things aren't stacking up as He promised.
    Micael....you're being silly....transparency is only good when it helps your cause, not when it can potentially hurt it. What happened to all those meetings that citizens would get to witness? What happened to all the discussion in the open? What a joke. The sad thing is that many who voted for Obama did so based on "changing Washington", and boy did those folks get taken. It's business as usual....at least behind closed doors.
    Last edited by clemgrad85; 11/18/2009 at 09:05 AM.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  3. #1143  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    .... But, that is what will happen when the government is running our health care.
    Enron executives would run it much better.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  4. #1144  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Perhaps a glimpse of what will happen if the government takes over health care? The new US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines state that routine mammograms aren't necessary for women of average cancer risk in their 40s, and that women between 50 and 74 years old don't need to undergo mammograms more often than every other year. Now....as davidra will happily point out, I am not a doctor, but apparently many medical groups such as The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Cancer Society, and the AMA, are in disagreement with this.

    The task force says they aren't "saying there isn't a benefit to screening women in their 40s, but rather the benefit is small". Tell that to the woman who's future public option health plan doesn't allow the mammogram and she ends up getting diagnosed late. Her public option plan won't do her much good then....although...she might have it for free!!!!! Whooohoooo. But, that is what will happen when the government is running our health care.
    This is the perfect example of why politics should not ever have anything to do with science. I heard someone complaining about the fact that even after all these years we still don't know what the "right answer" is for this question. The fact is that it takes many years to do the studies to determine best practices. This is a cost/benefit decision that is NOT based solely on cost. The fact that it is recommended completely independently of the government having to pay for the studies should be proof. This is using evidence-based medicine. The Cochrane Collaboration, probably the single best resource in the world for evidence, has been saying this for some time. But the politics of women's health care have made suggesting changes in recommendations very dicey. The point is that you are applying group population data to individuals. Now there will be women coming out of the woodwork saying that they are between 40 and 50 and their lives were saved because they got mammograms. That is not the point. You could do the same thing if you did mammograms on women between 30 and 40. It is not cost-effective in terms of benefits. For example, if you took 1000 women and screened them with mammograms, over 10 years around 15 of them would get breast cancer (clearly, whether screened or not; hopefully you get that). If you screen those women, 300 will have "positive" mammograms and around 200 will get biopsies. The cost of those 190 or so negative biopsies is considerable, there are complications of those biopsies, and the false positive mammograms cause significant emotional stress to those women who are having them. There are also possible negative consequences of radiation exposure, although those are less now that they were.

    And what is the outcome? After ten years, depending on the study, between 6 and 9 women from the screened group will die of breast cancer, and between 7 and 10 women from the unscreened group will die of breast cancer. The cost of screening 1000 women for ten years with annual mammograms, plus the cost of the biopsies, plus the stress caused by false positive tests may result in as few as one less person dying from breast cancer. Now...you tell me. Is it worth it? Who should make that decision? You are paying for these studies now, whether through government programs or through your insurance. This gives you some kind of idea how difficult it is to determine what should and shouldn't be paid for....but as I've said many times in these threads, the US Preventive Services Task Force uses evidence to make their decisions....and not necessarily the best interests of a consitutency. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends pap smears more frequently than the task force. Is there self-interest at work? These are not decisions that should be made by politicians, forum members on a phone forum, or even individual doctors in terms of the population. They should be made by people who understand the costs and consequences of providing care. Hopefully that is what we will get with reform....groups using scientific evidence to determine what works and doesn't work.
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1145  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    When our monetary system goes down the drain, and inflation is through the roof, something tells me people will regret this debt. And I don't blame just the democrats, it's the Republican's fault as well. Plenty of blame to go around.

    I've told you how I feel they can address the health care issue and either you just are getting too old to remember, or just like to pretend I don't have any ideas. In fact, not too long ago you said you actually agreed with me on some of those ideas.

    1) Insurance companies must accept any condition, no pre-ex

    2) EVERYONE must enroll with a SUBSTANTIAL penalty if they don't (I hate this one, but is the only way #1 will work)

    3) Set up a subsidy plan through each state that helps offset premiums. Someone with a health condition making $200k doesn't need help with premiums, they need the ability to get the coverage (see #1). However, someone who is healthy making $10k needs assistance with the premium. This subsidy can be funded through various means such as at the gas pump or through state sales tax. But everyone pitches in....not just one group.

    4) Work on medicare fraud. Too much waste, needs to be addressed, but not sure it can be. Reduced waste can reduce overall medical spending thus bringing down health premiums.

    5) Tort reform. This will not only help reduce premiums that physicians pay but might also stop them from having to send people for tests that aren't necessary (for fear of being sued).

    Obviously these are simplified, but I believe they can be implemented and can make a difference. It ain't rocket science....just need to get the politics out of the picture, but not sure that is possible.
    I'm with you on most of these, but as you know, I feel that #2 is just plain wrong and not necessary, as you imply. If you address costs and tort reform, you won't need to resort to it.

    Clem, the idea that the government can force you to buy something, and then put you in jail for not complying, is just wrong. Essentially you're caving in to government funded and controlled healthcare. It's important that you stick to core principles. You're really off base here and need to rethink it.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1146  
    Hello Everyone,

    A few more articles on this "reform."

    This article speaks to the sham that is promised in "cost savings"
    RealClearPolitics - Obama's Malpractice ]

    This article talks about other various ways we are being lied to and the other effects of this "reform."
    Jeffrey S. Flier: Health 'Reform' Gets a Failing Grade - WSJ.com

    Both underscore the point (in different ways) that our Government is foisting a massive pack of lies on us. I cannot be more clear. Our Elected government--who is supposed to represent us is engaging in intentional deception (and/or willful fantasy) with this Healthcare "reform" plan.

    How this is acceptable to anyone is beyond me. If you're like some here and simply don't care, and choose to believe (long shot) that this will help, despite all the other problems it will cause and that somehow this isn't a net loss, well...I can't agree. For the rest of you...look at what you are advocating. In your blind desire for "reform" you are allowing these incompetent buffoons who run Congress to "fix" the system that they have had large parts in ruining.

    It is not too late to wake up and stop enabling great damage to not only this countries economy, but our quality of healthcare. Let's make REAL reforms. It can be done step by step and enacted BEFORE this travesty promises to begin (2013).

    Our "leaders" in Washington are lying to all of us, and they don't care about who this will harm or what damage it does the country. They are pushing this because it is to their political benefit, and for NO OTHER REASON.

    For all the crying and whining I've heard about the "fear mongering liars" amongst Republicans (and I am happy to acknowledge unhelpful hyperbole has taken place), it seems that these supporters of healthcare reform are more than happy to buy into a plan that is WHOLESALE LIES. I guess its ok to support liars when its something you think you want.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 11/18/2009 at 09:58 AM. Reason: Additional Point
  7. #1147  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I'm with you on most of these, but as you know, I feel that #2 is just plain wrong and not necessary, as you imply. If you address costs and tort reform, you won't need to resort to it.

    Clem, the idea that the government can force you to buy something, and then put you in jail for not complying, is just wrong. Essentially you're caving in to government funded and controlled healthcare. It's important that you stick to core principles. You're really off base here and need to rethink it.
    Well....I have never said jail time for not enrolling....it would have to be a fine and one that made a difference. It would be useless to have a $500 fine for not enrolling if the premium was $2000 (individual). However, maybe a $1500 fine? Yes, that is still lower but for the extra $500 maybe the person would see it as a good deal and just do it. But I have NEVER said jail time for not getting health coverage, you must have me confused with some other crazy right wing conservative.

    And again....I hate requiring people to enroll for coverage, really goes against what I believe in. But, just as davidra deals with patients, I deal with people who get turned down for health coverage and in most cases the fact that they are uninsured is not their fault. We need to get these people covered and so insurance companies must be required to accept them. If we force them to accept everyone, they MUST have young healthy premium payors to offset the unhealthy folks. Again, not rocket science here, just plain commone sense. But I hate having to require anyone to do anything, but I see no other way to accomplish getting people with health problems covered. Sometimes you just gotta bend a little to get the right outcome.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  8. #1148  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    Enron executives would run it much better.
    So your point? Enron was a fraudalent energy company, why would they be involved in health care? If you want a bad example of running health care, you would just get the Federal Government to run it. They have proven time and time again that they are inefficient and when they are losing money, they just keep going, ask for even more money from citizens, and lose more. You totally lost me on your Enron example.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1149  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Well....I have never said jail time for not enrolling....it would have to be a fine and one that made a difference. It would be useless to have a $500 fine for not enrolling if the premium was $2000 (individual). However, maybe a $1500 fine? Yes, that is still lower but for the extra $500 maybe the person would see it as a good deal and just do it. But I have NEVER said jail time for not getting health coverage, you must have me confused with some other crazy right wing conservative.

    And again....I hate requiring people to enroll for coverage, really goes against what I believe in. But, just as davidra deals with patients, I deal with people who get turned down for health coverage and in most cases the fact that they are uninsured is not their fault. We need to get these people covered and so insurance companies must be required to accept them. If we force them to accept everyone, they MUST have young healthy premium payors to offset the unhealthy folks. Again, not rocket science here, just plain commone sense. But I hate having to require anyone to do anything, but I see no other way to accomplish getting people with health problems covered. Sometimes you just gotta bend a little to get the right outcome.
    Core values and principles aren't bent, they're kept, or just broken and discarded. Varying or lowering the degree of punishment doesn't make it right. I'm not convinced that the -=*ONLY*=- way to pay for insuring people involves forcing people to buy insurance. Neither you or I know enough about the dynamics and finances to justify such a radical option. Let's agree to leave that as a last resort, at least?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. #1150  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Core values and principles aren't bent, they're kept, or just broken and discarded. Varying or lowering the degree of punishment doesn't make it right. I'm not convinced that the -=*ONLY*=- way to pay for insuring people involves forcing people to buy insurance. Neither you or I know enough about the dynamics and finances to justify such a radical option. Let's agree to leave that as a last resort, at least?
    I will only reply once So I'll bite....how do you get the person that is currently not being accepted by an insurance company because of a health issue, covered? I met with a woman yesterday who is a diabetic and has HBP and in SC is not going to get covered by an insurance company. She has been covered under her husband's group plan but he is about to go on Medicara and therefore she can only remain on the group plan for up to 6 months (not a COBRA eligible group, SC State Continuation). So, she cannot get health coverage. So how do you propose getting people like her covered?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  11. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1151  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    So your point? Enron was a fraudalent energy company, why would they be involved in health care? If you want a bad example of running health care, you would just get the Federal Government to run it. They have proven time and time again that they are inefficient and when they are losing money, they just keep going, ask for even more money from citizens, and lose more. You totally lost me on your Enron example.
    Want to hear something even more funny (bad way). Enron apparently was a big proponent of Cap and Trade...something the Obama administration is pushing. So, yes, Frauds like Enron and the Government have a LOT in common.

    I think Palandri was attempting to paint the Stain of Enron on any and all private industry. Of course that is not accurate, and unlike Private Industry--with the Federal government we are stuck--no options, no choices, no refusal to participate. Isn't it interesting how some are so bothered by private companies (that we can choose to NOT do business with), but are more than happy to have government force us to do what they want.

    Oh well, so much for Liberty.

    KAM
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1152  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I will only reply once So I'll bite....how do you get the person that is currently not being accepted by an insurance company because of a health issue, covered? I met with a woman yesterday who is a diabetic and has HBP and in SC is not going to get covered by an insurance company. She has been covered under her husband's group plan but he is about to go on Medicara and therefore she can only remain on the group plan for up to 6 months (not a COBRA eligible group, SC State Continuation). So, she cannot get health coverage. So how do you propose getting people like her covered?
    I know this was addressed to Micael, but I've got an idea.

    First--I think that Pre-existing conditions need to be dealt with differently which I've outlined previously in this and other threads. However, if for some reason that cannot be worked out, why not cover these people as part of a Reformed (actually reformed) medicaid?

    Medicaid, which is already funded to the tune of 300 billion could be used to cover the actual poor (not those who choose not to buy their own coverage as millions do), and those who have special exceptions. Now, again--I would rather figure out a private solution, but since we are shelling out billions anyway, why not actually use this money to cover those folks as well. Since, we are being told we can save Hundreds of Billions, we should have PLENTY of money without forcing anyone into anything or costing a single dime more (not talking about increasing the deficit, but rather no additional cost).

    Another lie running under this whole "reform" issue is that Government is already mis-spending BILLIONS of dollars that should rightfully be covering the poor, elderly, Veterans. Government's failure is to blame, and yet we are allowing them to "fix" their own failures, which really means expand and continue to fail.

    KAM
  13. #1153  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I know this was addressed to Micael, but I've got an idea.

    First--I think that Pre-existing conditions need to be dealt with differently which I've outlined previously in this and other threads. However, if for some reason that cannot be worked out, why not cover these people as part of a Reformed (actually reformed) medicaid?

    Medicaid, which is already funded to the tune of 300 billion could be used to cover the actual poor (not those who choose not to buy their own coverage as millions do), and those who have special exceptions. Now, again--I would rather figure out a private solution, but since we are shelling out billions anyway, why not actually use this money to cover those folks as well. Since, we are being told we can save Hundreds of Billions, we should have PLENTY of money without forcing anyone into anything or costing a single dime more (not talking about increasing the deficit, but rather no additional cost).

    Another lie running under this whole "reform" issue is that Government is already mis-spending BILLIONS of dollars that should rightfully be covering the poor, elderly, Veterans. Government's failure is to blame, and yet we are allowing them to "fix" their own failures, which really means expand and continue to fail.

    KAM
    Kam....seems like your option is just getting the government more involved in healthcare. Under the "getting rid of pre-ex" option, this keeps the government out of healthcare, other than the "law" part. I see this as a way to avoid the government failures you mentioned. I do worry about the constitutionality of the government forcing healthcare on people, but again, at least the government is not running the healthcare.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1154  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I will only reply once So I'll bite....how do you get the person that is currently not being accepted by an insurance company because of a health issue, covered? I met with a woman yesterday who is a diabetic and has HBP and in SC is not going to get covered by an insurance company. She has been covered under her husband's group plan but he is about to go on Medicara and therefore she can only remain on the group plan for up to 6 months (not a COBRA eligible group, SC State Continuation). So, she cannot get health coverage. So how do you propose getting people like her covered?
    Maybe I'm not being clear. You're a great guy, Clem, and I know you're passionate about this. I invite you to take a moment and please review this study. It's not partisan, it has data clearly tabled and methodology defined in detail. It doesn't prove or disprove my position, but I think it's an eye opener for both of us.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1155  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Kam....seems like your option is just getting the government more involved in healthcare. Under the "getting rid of pre-ex" option, this keeps the government out of healthcare, other than the "law" part. I see this as a way to avoid the government failures you mentioned. I do worry about the constitutionality of the government forcing healthcare on people, but again, at least the government is not running the healthcare.
    Well, as I stated--that is not my first preference. However, addressing those in need is much preferred to attempting to force millions of people who aren't currently without healthcare into a government system (the "you can keep your policy" promise is a farce), that will NOT save money. In other words--I don't prefer to throw the baby out with the bathwater (even though the baby needs more washing).

    My first preference is to design a clear-cut system to share costs for Pre-existing conditions, without just skyrocketing premium costs for something that MIGHT happen, and pay for it only if it DOES happen. That's my non-government solution--in brief.

    Government telling you what you must buy isn't keeping them out of healthcare in my view.

    This whole thing is a very obvious power grab. This power-hungry government (as they tend to be) is using the justification of the "uninsured" (using wildly inflated numbers and ignoring other facts) to push a wholesale takeover of the Healthcare system. For non-socialists this is a problem, practically and constitutionally. Some simply do not care--like Davidra--he's only focused on the supposed improvement in providing care. Others want this because they love big government, or are just on board with the rhetoric of this administration.

    Problem is...this is ENTIRELY political. If there is some benefit or not...that's really secondary and goes a long way to explain why a lot of these idiotic ideas are even in there. Some people refuse to believe this is about power...ok, sure. Then look at the result--where this is going, and realize it is the result even if it isn't the goal (same end point, same problem).

    So, no, I would much prefer LESS government in healthcare, and a plan to extract them from this to the maximum degree possible. A successfully reformed PRIVATE system will lead to this.

    I've not argued that Government should NEVER be involved in things, rather I prefer that they help with transitioning people back to successful private interactions. Government should be in the business of PROMOTING private enterprise, not blocking them out, regulating them to death (and mismanaging their role as regulators). Government should be a fair arbiter to ENHANCE the citizens' ability to engage in commerce, not to BE part of commerce.

    KAM
  16. #1156  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    So your point? Enron was a fraudalent energy company, why would they be involved in health care? If you want a bad example of running health care, you would just get the Federal Government to run it. They have proven time and time again that they are inefficient and when they are losing money, they just keep going, ask for even more money from citizens, and lose more. You totally lost me on your Enron example.
    Because you say that everything the gov't does is an automatic fail. That as silly as me saying everything that a person from south carolina does is an automatic fail.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  17. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1157  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    Because you say that everything the gov't does is an automatic fail. That as silly as me saying everything that a person from south carolina does is an automatic fail.
    Not really. In one case you are talking about a single entity (the Federal Government) that has a reputation (well deserved) of being wasteful, and inefficient. Comparing that to an unnamed individual that you likely have little to no information about or any basis to make such a judgment isn't on the same level of silliness at all.

    One is a claim without basis and the other is an observation of history. Of course everything the Government does isn't a failure, just a lot of things are. If you want to get specific to entitlement programs almost every single one is a failure from a financial standpoint, in that they typically cost a lot more than promised, and create a much larger tax burden than the lying politicians who sell these things ever admit.

    KAM
  18. #1158  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Not really. In one case you are talking about a single entity (the Federal Government) that has a reputation (well deserved) of being wasteful, and inefficient. Comparing that to an unnamed individual that you likely have little to no information about or any basis to make such a judgment isn't on the same level of silliness at all.

    One is a claim without basis and the other is an observation of history. Of course everything the Government does isn't a failure, just a lot of things are. If you want to get specific to entitlement programs almost every single one is a failure from a financial standpoint, in that they typically cost a lot more than promised, and create a much larger tax burden than the lying politicians who sell these things ever admit.

    KAM
    Maybe we all can be ruled only by private companies!!! That would be nice attending to the fact that they just spend on what's necessary.
    Last edited by glorifiedg; 11/18/2009 at 04:12 PM.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1159  
    Quote Originally Posted by glorifiedg View Post
    Maybe we all can't be ruled only by private companies!!! That would be nice attending to the fact that they just spend on what's necessary.
    In the US, we're not "ruled".
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1160  
    Quote Originally Posted by glorifiedg View Post
    Maybe we all can't be ruled only by private companies!!! That would be nice attending to the fact that they just spend on what's necessary.
    Ruled by Private Companies? Exactly in what way do you imagine that you are forced to interact with private companies? That's the difference--if you don't want to do business with them...you simply don't.

    KAM

Posting Permissions