Obamacare death panel round one.......no need to have prostate screening say the "experts"

[AeroGuyDC]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

I trust government appointees, who are ultimately beholden to the people, far more than I trust corporate flunkies who are only beholden to the profits.

If a test statistically causes 5 deaths per thousand but will only save 4 patients per thousand, the test's risks outweigh its benefits. End of story. Trying to make this an indictment against Obama or viewing this as part of a vast conspiracy is nuts.

That's not the argument. Once again, you fail.

[Ohiogirl81]

Originally Posted by Wynternight

I believe they were referring to Obamacare as the "Law" and not the recommendation on mammograms.

Critical thinking is your friend.

And not assuming readers will make a tenuous connection not even mentioned in the linked news article is yours.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

The panel itself is not partisan. That's never been the claim. The claim is that the findings of the panel are not merely thrown at the public without first being vetted through political filters at HHS, CDC, and ultimately the White House (because political appointees are involved).

Had the findings been detrimental to Obamacare or any other government sanctioned medical apparatus, these findings would have been deemed "further review is necessary" and shelved until after the election.

That's how Washington works. I could go on and on about the politics of submitting briefings for White House review, but none of you would believe it because it's coming from me. Instead, I invite you to learn more about the White House Office of Management and Budget, and try your darndest to figure out how that office works directly with Executive Branch agencies and beyond to control the message.

You're saying Bush White House purposely kept the public in the dark about the findings in 2002? That is outrageous.

In the other hand that is not how it works. The White House does NOT approve the panel's finding. You made that part up.

The panel just goes ahead and publishes "Recommendation Statements"

The USPSTF is an independent panel of non-Federal experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine and is composed of primary care providers (such as internists, pediatricians, family physicians, gynecologists/obstetricians, nurses, and health behavior specialists).

The USPSTF conducts scientific evidence reviews of a broad range of clinical preventive health care services (such as screening, counseling, and preventive medications) and develops recommendations for primary care clinicians and health systems. These recommendations are published in the form of "Recommendation Statements."

[AeroGuyDC]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

You're saying Bush White House purposely kept the public in the dark about the findings in 2002? That is outrageous.

In the other hand that is not how it works. The White House does NOT approve the panel's finding. You made that part up.

The panel just goes ahead and publishes "Recommendation Statements"

You need to re-read what you think you read. I have not said anything about the panel or its recommendations being partisan. In fact, I've stated the exact opposite in the post in which you responded. How did you miss that?

The vast majority of the American populace is ignorant as to how it actually works in Washington DC. Instead of counting yourself as one of those people, I encourage you to do your own research and find out how OMB and political appointees control the message.

In DC, it's not about what you hear, it's about what you DON'T hear. That's the crux of everyday government maneuvering. Educate yourself.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

How did you derive that conclusion?

I know how USPSTF works.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I wouldn't go that far. There are agressive forms and non-agressive forms.

Yes, and men have a small viewing panel under the ******* that turns mauve if it is non-aggressive and char`treuse if it is, so the doctor can know in advance what type it is.

Amused...

Mircea

Originally Posted by Grim Reader

Why do you feel a need to detect it?

That exemplifies one of the major differences between Europeans and
Americans that I have constantly highlighted.

Europeans go to the doctor to get well.

Americans go to the doctor to feel good.

"Getting well" and "feeling good" are not the same thing. "Getting well" is objective, quantifiable and can be qualified, while "feeling good" is wholly subjective, and can never be quantified or qualified.

Differentiating...

Mircea

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

No. This is why I ask:

PolitiFact | Barack Obama says preventive care 'saves money'

This seems counter to Barack Obama's position on preventitive medicine, which in turn makes one wonder why all of a sudden preventative care is not necessarily needed in this case.

Oooops.

That's an outstanding response. Get you a case of beer for that one.

Watching The Boy King waffle (yet again)...

Mircea

Originally Posted by KUchief25

It is quite obvious they are looking for ways to try and pay for this nonsense and letting a few folks die to avoid paying for the screening is a good way to start.

We all knew this was going to happen.

This only proves what I've been saying all along, that you don't have a Free Market Health Care System, because that is an excellent example of Soviet Command Economics Style interference in the Market.

You have a limited pool of money for health care...period.

Out of that limited pool of money for health care, you have pools of money for:

1] Research & Development
2] Preventive Medicine
3] Health/Health Care Education
4] Health Care Labor
5] Health Care Diagnostic Equipment
6] Maintenance of Diagnostic Equipment
7] Health Care Facilities
8] Maintenance of Health Care Facilities
9] Security of Health Care Facilities
10] Pharmaceuticals
11] Medical Devices
12] Health Care Treatment
13] Health Care Administration/Management
14] Other Health Care Resources

So who decides where this very limited money should go? It should be the Market and not Government.

As things currently stand, there is a small division here between private resources and government resources, but even so, the government heavily influences where and how that money is spent. Research on new pharmaceutical drugs is funded by profits from the sale of pharmaceuticals. There it is largely the Market (of doctors and their patients) who decide where that research money is spent. But the government also has a pool of money for research and pharmaceutical companies often take their lead from the government.

If the government controls health care, like a lot of people on this forum want, the Market is completely cut out. Research dollars are spent where ever government says they should be spent, and what influences that?

The people that scream the loudest.

So a bunch of mothers of "autistic" children start screaming, elected officials are embarrassed and intimidated (and heavily lobbied) and they decide to shift more money into research on autism.

At the expense of what? Cancer research? Research on birth defects? Diabetes? Heart disease? Is that what you really want? A small minority of people deciding when and how your health care money should be spent for the majority?

And it won't stop there. The government will decide where money is spent on prevention, education, diagnostics, treatment, labor etc etc etc, and never based on reality; never based on Market need or demand, but always based on who has the most political clout and screams loudest and lobbies the hardest.

Sorry we cannot remove the giant tumor on your gall bladder in this fiscal year. We've already spent what miniscule amount of funding we got on giant tumor removal and we can only spend the remaining money treating people with gangrene.

Laugh if you want, but that's exactly how it will be.

Obviously...

Mircea

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Yes, and men have a small viewing panel under the ******* that turns mauve if it is non-aggressive and char`treuse if it is, so the doctor can know in advance what type it is.

Amused...

Mircea



That exemplifies one of the major differences between Europeans and
Americans that I have constantly highlighted.

Europeans go to the doctor to get well.

Americans go to the doctor to feel good.

"Getting well" and "feeling good" are not the same thing. "Getting well" is objective, quantifiable and can be qualified, while "feeling good" is wholly subjective, and can never be quantified or qualified.

Differentiating...

Mircea



Oooops.

That's an outstanding response. Get you a case of beer for that one.

Watching The Boy King waffle (yet again)...

Mircea



We all knew this was going to happen.

This only proves what I've been saying all along, that you don't have a Free Market Health Care System, because that is an excellent example of Soviet Command Economics Style interference in the Market.

You have a limited pool of money for health care...period.

Out of that limited pool of money for health care, you have pools of money for:

1] Research & Development
2] Preventive Medicine
3] Health/Health Care Education
4] Health Care Labor
5] Health Care Diagnostic Equipment
6] Maintenance of Diagnostic Equipment
7] Health Care Facilities
8] Maintenance of Health Care Facilities
9] Security of Health Care Facilities
10] Pharmaceuticals
11] Medical Devices
12] Health Care Treatment
13] Health Care Administration/Management
14] Other Health Care Resources

So who decides where this very limited money should go? It should be the Market and not Government.

As things currently stand, there is a small division here between private resources and government resources, but even so, the government heavily influences where and how that money is spent. Research on new pharmaceutical drugs is funded by profits from the sale of pharmaceuticals. There it is largely the Market (of doctors and their patients) who decide where that research money is spent. But the government also has a pool of money for research and pharmaceutical companies often take their lead from the government.

If the government controls health care, like a lot of people on this forum want, the Market is completely cut out. Research dollars are spent where ever government says they should be spent, and what influences that?

The people that scream the loudest.

So a bunch of mothers of "autistic" children start screaming, elected officials are embarrassed and intimidated (and heavily lobbied) and they decide to shift more money into research on autism.

At the expense of what? Cancer research? Research on birth defects? Diabetes? Heart disease? Is that what you really want? A small minority of people deciding when and how your health care money should be spent for the majority?

And it won't stop there. The government will decide where money is spent on prevention, education, diagnostics, treatment, labor etc etc etc, and never based on reality; never based on Market need or demand, but always based on who has the most political clout and screams loudest and lobbies the hardest.

Sorry we cannot remove the giant tumor on your gall bladder in this fiscal year. We've already spent what miniscule amount of funding we got on giant tumor removal and we can only spend the remaining money treating people with gangrene.

Laugh if you want, but that's exactly how it will be.

Obviously...

Mircea

Knock off the snark, Mircea! And quit writing these novels while you're at it.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by malamute

Wrong. There is the PSA blood test, the digital exam to check for enlargement and of course biopsies.

Most likely all of us know someone whose cancer was caught in time because of screening tests.

It's just a good thing this is being done by a radical leftist administration so no one can object. The same radical liberals who cried real tears when ketchup was classified as a vegetable but didn't mind when salsa was also classified as a vegetable for school lunches reacts one way or the other all based on politics.

If the Obama administration wants to eliminate PSA tests and all tests for prostate cancer, fine. The liberals never question anything their politicans do.

A biopsy?You gotta be kidding!

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by LeftyTrav

Well...sophisticated or not, it correctly identifies the presence of blood....which indicates a potential problem.

When used recreationally, such as in your case, then yes....I too doubt its merits.

Oh, and it's prostate....not prostrate.

Recreationally? Not only do you set yourself up as the spelling queen, but think you are a comedian....I hate that test with a passion....