Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're taking a very complicated issue and reducing it to typical Republican ignorance and stupidity. The question of mammograms and PSA screenings belong in a science debate not in some Republican hypocrite's talking points. My own OB told me he's not entire sure about when to do mammograms right now.
If the private sector made this decision you would not give a damn.
It seems you don't understand how Washington DC works, either.
No one is blaming Obamacare. Obamacare stands to benefit, which by extension benefits the President as news of the cost savings begins to trickle out for public consumption. The more good news for Obamacare in a year when it is being challenged, the better the argument against "activist judges" when it is shutdown by the Supreme Court.
Nice try.
Try? Trickery? You can't feel better about self unless you bad-mouth the President in some way, and in this case, Obamacare is integral to the tune you're obligated self to. I don't have to do anything but quote your contributions to this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
You know, that was the first thing that crossed my mind when I saw this report on the news tonight. My default position is that this whole change of heart is likely the result of the Obama Administration looking for ways to make Obamacare less costly to the government through fewer tests.
It's very transparent to me that that's what's going on here.
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. The CDC is an arm of the government with political appointees who answer to the President. There's all kinds of reasons to be skeptical....the biggest being that Obamacare is a boondoggle of the highest degree. With every passing day, something is proven/disproven/determined that doesn't quite mesh with what was sold to the public during the legislative debate. In other words, there's all kinds of bait and switch going on. I encourage you to question your government, even when it doesn't seem fair to do so. Falling for their every word....every whim.....is counterproductive to the progress of this country.....especially in an election year when much scrutiny of your government is not only necessary, but imperative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Doctor's questioning the value doesn't equate to the CDC questioning the value. In order to move government one direction or another, there's always a political angle. You don't just show up in the President's office and say "We're the CDC and we're going to change directions whether you like it or not".....especially not in an election year.....and especially when the organization is led by a political appointee. The political benefit is analyzed. If there's no benefit, then it gets shelved. That's the reality of government operations.
I have no doubt in my mind that the next big headline on this subject will be the "cost savings to taxpayers and Obamacare" argument. We're in the "posturing and conditioning" phase right now......the "benefits" phase is right around the corner. Bet on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
That's what they're telling you, and then you come online and parrot the same information. Do you understand, Jack, that that's exactly what they wanted you to do?
You see, when government tries to move in one direction or another, it's generally understood that the populace must be willing to move with it. What better way to do that than to have an organization with a political appointee (CDC) come forth and make grand proclamations about a given test procedure, only to have those new findings to be beneficial to the one single accomplishment that Barack Obama can claim (until the Supreme Court shoots it's down)?
Do you think the CDC would have made such a bold announcement if it actually increased the costs to Obamacare? Of course not. Then you should reconcile with yourself that the CDC would indeed make such a finding known when the President's signature achievement would benefit from it. That's how Washington works.
It makes sense on the surface that this is a random, unbiased finding, yes, but you shouldn't summarily discount the political reality of such a grand pronouncement when a political appointee is involved. There's a rhyme and a reason to EVERY government action.....especially in an election year.......especially in an election year for a failed President.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
And therein lies the REALanswer as to why this "new finding" was put forth. We are currently in the "posturing and conditioning" phase.....the cost "benefit" phase is right around the corner. Standby for the headlines proclaiming the boon to Obamacare via cost savings. They'll surely be put forth in short order, which was the whole idea from the get-go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Oh brother.
The Task Force is led by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services. Guess who developed Obamacare policy?
Had this "new finding" been detrimental to Obamacare, it never would have seen the light of day. Do you disagree?
I promise i'm not trying to be condescending, but seriously, you should stop taking everything that comes forth from the government as unbiased. EVERYTHING that eminates from the government is biased for political gain. Please, do your due diligence and understand that there's vast government reach in everything that comes from Washington DC.
So, leave your crap at home and respond:
Obamacare stands to benefit with this... how? And private insurers using this premise is irrelevant... how?
It seems you don't understand how Washington DC works, either.
I know how someone who doesn't read anything but Fox News thinks.
The private sector has been completely denying care to people for years and years and years. Conservatives shrug and don't care when they do so. Why are you so up in arms when a medical decision is being debated by scientists instead of profiteering greedheads?
I know how someone who doesn't read anything but Fox News thinks.
The private sector has been completely denying care to people for years and years and years. Conservatives shrug and don't care when they do so. Why are you so up in arms when a medical decision is being debated by scientists instead of profiteering greedheads?
Show me something....anything.....from Fox News that is making the same statements that i'm making. You won't find it because i'm speaking from experience in DC affairs, not from some far flung office in the corner of nowhere watching Fox News all day.
I've lived, worked, solicited, and lobbied for work in DC for far too long. It may not make sense to you, I get that, but that doesn't mean what i'm saying is inaccurate or overblown.
I explained it already while you were in multi-quoting bliss.
The pleasure is mine. I would do it over and over again. It is fun and a constant reminder why I couldn't be one of you "conservatives".
So, you actually addressed something you thought was irrelevant? As in:
- No one is blaming Obamacare
- [Private insurers] are irrelevant
Really? Where? In this more of the same...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
I maintain that everything that comes out of Washington DC has a political angle, no matter how unbiased the actual subject would seem.
Let's take your vaccination schedule for example: In the abstract, a vaccination schedule in and of itself is inoccuous. But behind the scenes, there's a coordinated lobbying effort not only to secure the actual vaccination schedule itself, but to recommend certain vaccines made by certain pharmaceutical companies.
So, we went from an unbiased vaccination schedule to a specific set of vaccines made by a specific organization. Somewhere along the way, there was political gain from that seemingly unbiased, scientific research.
EVERYTHING that comes from Washington DC benefits a politician and other stakeholders. That's how it is, no matter what it is. The PSA test "finding" is no different. In this case, Obamacare will most likely see significant savings, thereby giving the President the political ammunition he seeks as he tries to salvage his one achievement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Reimbursment rates and reimbursement schedules. Look it up. If the government deems the test to be unnecessary, then it simply won't pay for the procedure, which virtually ensures that insurance companies won't offer it as a regular and recurring test. That's not unique to Obamacare, butit certainly will be applied to Obamacare because that's one of the legislations more imposing provisions - government deciding who, what, when, and where to pay (or not) through various panels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
It seems you don't understand how Washington DC works, either.
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. I wonder what will be next on the chopping block. So Obamacare wants to pay for birth control but let men die. Is this a war on men? If it were the other way around I know some would be howling at the moon right now. LOL
(CBS News) A top panel of health experts called the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force says that men should no longer get routine prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests to screen for prostate cancer. The reason, it says, is that the tests may lead to treatments that do more harm than good. U.S. panel recommends against PSA tests for screening prostate cancer in men of all ages
More than 33,000 American men die of prostate cancer each year. And, every year, 20 million get the PSA test to detect the disease early. The recommendation is already causing a lot of criticism. Dr. Jon LaPook reported on the issue.
For 20 years, the message has been the same: Get a PSA test every year or two, detect prostate cancer early -- and save your life. Dr. Michael Lefevre helped lead the panel that said the message was wrong.
"The problem is that in contrast to the small benefits, a significant number of men will be harmed by the test and treatments that follow prostate cancer screening," he said to CBS News.
The task force said:
The PSA is unreliable, giving a falsely positive result 80 percent of the time.
Prostate cancer is typically diagnosed in older men, and the disease usually progresses so slowly they die of something else.
Gotta find a way to pay for the free contraceptive services!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
