What do you think of that new guideline?
Judity
guidelines for mammograms. It's recommend that this test be started
when a woman is in her 50's and not her 40's.
My older sister first was diagnosed with breast cancer in her late
40's, and this gave her an extra eight years of life. She was
diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer in 1995 an died the next year
from it. Earlier this year, my younger sister also received a breast
cancer diagnosis. She was 58 at the time, the same age my other
sister died.
As for me, I getting my yearly mammogram this coming Thursday and have
had one ever year since my early 40's. Even if my Kaiser didn't cover
this test, I'd be willing to pay out of pocket for it.
Because SMT is mostly women, and you few men have wives and/or
sisters, what do all of you think of this new guideline?
Judity
LizzieB.
> On television all morning have been comments about new government
> guidelines for mammograms. It's recommend that this test be started
> when a woman is in her 50's and not her 40's.
>
Yes, because when you're preparing to take on the healthcare costs of
everyone in the country, cutting ten years of radiology bills off your
budget is a good thing.
Follow the money...
--
LizzieB.
After six years of MT, I've caught a suspicious case of ennui.
This is how I've been amusing myself in my MT malaise:
http://theproviso.com
http://b10mediaworx.com
To mail, replace the k with an x.
Karen C.
> Because SMT is mostly women, and you few men have wives and/or
> sisters, what do all of you think of this new guideline?
It stinks.
It's shades of things to come. Sigh.
Karen C.
Anne V
news:2c4d87f9-d82d-4427...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I think it's nothing but a cost-saver for insurance companies. I'll also
continue to get mine yearly.
Anne
Sue -- Firefighter mom, Still UW Dawg fan!
Judity, It is one of many attacks on women's health in a spiral that
is out of control. Even right winger Elisabeth Hasselbeck today said
it is a blatant gendercide. They are attacking women's health big time
today in all aspects and this one is way out of line. I think it is
ridiculous. Women need to fight this and need to start fighting all of
the attacks against women that are starting. Dropping coverage for
abortions was not the only thing they eliminated. They are eliminating
basic female care in general. This was what the republicans insisted
be removed NOT JUST abortion. I think we have a sick group here.
Probably our C street family boys!
Sue M
Marsha
> Judity wrote:
>> On television all morning have been comments about new government
>> guidelines for mammograms. It's recommend that this test be started
>> when a woman is in her 50's and not her 40's.
>>
>
> Yes, because when you're preparing to take on the healthcare costs of
> everyone in the country, cutting ten years of radiology bills off your
> budget is a good thing.
>
> Follow the money...
>
Welcome to the beginning of health care rationing.
Marsha
LizzieB.
*rolling eyes*
Marsha
> Marsha wrote:
>> LizzieB. wrote:
>>> Judity wrote:
>>>> On television all morning have been comments about new government
>>>> guidelines for mammograms. It's recommend that this test be started
>>>> when a woman is in her 50's and not her 40's.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, because when you're preparing to take on the healthcare costs of
>>> everyone in the country, cutting ten years of radiology bills off
>>> your budget is a good thing.
>>>
>>> Follow the money...
>>>
>>
>> Welcome to the beginning of health care rationing.
>>
>> Marsha
> I really don't know why this comes as a shock or a surprise to anybody.
> *rolling eyes*
>
It's only a surprise to those who voted for the wrong person in the last
election.
The Other Kim
Beginning??? Where have you been? Back when I was billing insurance
for offices starting in 1985 private insurers were already deciding how
many office visits were allowed per year, how many therapy sessions,
which lab tests, etc. This has been going on for many years.
Ironically, Medicare never pulled this crap when I was dealing with them
regularly.
The Other Kim
kimmeratsoylentgreenfielddotcom
JulieW8
wrote:
I have mixed feelings about it. My experience - and the experience of
many people I know - is that mammograms are highly inaccurate, are
very subjective to read, and probably aren't read with the amount of
attention they should be. I had a mammogram read as "normally
abnormal" and was told to return in a year for a repeat. The
ultrasound was also normal. When I had a repeat mammogram at another
facility, they (accurately) read it as abnormally abnormal and a
couple months later, I had a mastectomy. If I had accepted the first
result (and I SO wanted to!), I might have had not only the
mastectomy, but chemotherapy as well. I have a cousin who had a
"normal" mammogram 2 months before she had bilateral mastectomy.
In some ways, it does make some sense. Mammograms just aren't accurate
for women before they get older and the breast undergoes changes.
Truth is, MRI gives a much better picture - but nobody is going to
recommend annual MRIs as screening for breast cancer, starting at
40.The more virulent forms of breast cancer occur in younger women,
under 40. Not only is a mammo not very good for screening, they aren't
undergoing ANY kind of screening, except breast self exam.
Instead of changing the guidelines for mammograms, they should come up
with a more accurate diagnostic test for screening.
That's not to say I don't think women should get their mammogram. It's
better than nothing.
Jay
for healthcare "reform." With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Jay
kathycarp
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:25:02 -0800 (PST), Judity <Judit...@aol.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Didn't I also read in the report that self-breast exams are useless?
That's just crazy in my book, and decreases the credibility of the
study in my eyes. More than one woman has detected breast cancer by
examining her own breasts. What's next? Men aren't supposed to check
for testicular lumps? It will be interesting to see how this plays out
and if the American Cancer Association is going to back down.
Kathy
Pissant Queen
has to do with this. These recommendations are not being made by the
current administration whether you voted for them or not. Who will
jump on this are the uncontrollable insurance companies.
So be careful what you wish for, we are already starting to see just
how uncontrollable they are.
Janice
Sue -- Firefighter mom, Still UW Dawg fan!
You are right. This had nothing to do with the government whatsoever.
It was an independent group of companies and one of them was MD
Anderson, which was a surprise to me that do a lot of the staging
testing for BRCA etc. I can't remember the names of the other
companies but the government did not have a thing to do with the
study.
Sue M
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
>
> Welcome to the beginning of health care rationing.
What I really don't understand is why the government can't just expand
Medicare and/or MedicAid (Medi-CAL here in California) to everybody on a
sliding scale basis and up the rates they pay enough that more doctors
will want to contract with them? Poof, uniform basic health care
coverage program put into place. Poof, instant large market of
consumers that might also attract more doctors. Poof, silly debates all
done.
The only thing I would want to change about it is Medicare's ridiculous
policy of rejecting claims that aren't 100% perfect and refusing to
allow them to be resubmitted.
Judity
has to do with this. ))
Thank you, Janice, for interjecting a sane voice into so many biased
posts here.
I was curious and did some research on the agency coming out with this
and found among other items, the following:
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfab.htm#Members
I didn't see President Obama's name listed anywhere. Now I feel their
new guidelines would have been deadly to people like my older sister,
but I'm not sure what President Obama has to do with this decision. I
mean, that man is not at fault for everything that happens to us.
He's our President, not Superman, for crying out loud. Get a grip,
people!
Judity
You want some fun and inexpensive Christmas gifts?
Both of my books are listed on E-Booktime:
1,000 Words or Less
http://tinyurl.com/68fkoo
Home of the Red Fox
http://tinyurl.com/yw64ar
LizzieB.
> ((I sure would like to know what Obama and the present administration
> has to do with this. ))
>
> Thank you, Janice, for interjecting a sane voice into so many biased
> posts here.
>
Fuck you, Judity. Since you're so dead set on posting inflammatory shit
and then act all surprised and outraged and shocked and holier-than-thou
over the "biased" answers you get, I'm killfiling you.
You're just looking for a fight and I'm not going to participate.
Goodbye SMT. Thank Judity and her passive-aggressive hostility.
Ralph Mashuda
* The health services research arm of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), complementing the biomedical research mission of its
sister agency, the National Institutes of Health.
* Home to research centers that specialize in major areas of health care
research:
o Quality improvement and patient safety.
o Outcomes and effectiveness of care.
o Clinical practice and technology assessment.
o Health care organization and delivery systems.
o Primary care (including preventive services).
o Health care costs and sources of payment.
* A major source of funding and technical assistance for health services
research and research training at leading U.S. universities and other
institutions.
* A science partner, working with the public and private sectors to
build the knowledge base for what works-and does not work-in health and
health care and to translate this knowledge into everyday practice and
policymaking.
http://www.ahrq.gov/about/whatis.htm
"Sue -- Firefighter mom, Still UW Dawg fan!" <medla...@comcast.net> wrote
in message
news:5d73a455-9f6f-4e4e...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
The Other Kim
more detail. He's an oncology surgeon and kind of knows a bit about
cancer.
The Other Kim
kimmeratsoylentgreenfielddotcom
"Judity" <Judi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2c4d87f9-d82d-4427...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Sue -- Firefighter mom, Still UW Dawg fan!
Sue -- Firefighter mom, Still UW Dawg fan!
Oh dear, no, they will never cut back on screening for the almighty
male.
Sue M
Ralph Mashuda
"Sue -- Firefighter mom, Still UW Dawg fan!" <medla...@comcast.net> wrote
in message
news:ff5561d1-37b8-48a7...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Oh dear, no, they will never cut back on screening for the almighty
> male.
>
What screening?? Testicular cancer is almost exclusively a young man's
disease. There is *NO* effective screen for prostate cancer. The PSA test
has such a high incidence of false positives that it's worthless. How many
Men's Imaging Centers have you seen? How many hospitals have Men's Centers?
There are special Federal and state agencies set up to ensure the
availability and accuracy of mammograms. There is nothing even remotely
similar for men.
kathycarp
I was pretty sure that the news I read 2 days ago said that it was a
'government panel", so I went searching. Please explain. This is a
quote from Newsday, but I could have chosen one of hundreds that says
the same thing.
"In a dramatic reversal that has stirred wide debate, a key government
panel has recommended women should begin mammograms at 50 - not 40."
"The current administration" IS pretty much the government, isn't it.
"A key government panel" made these recommendations. The current
administration can try to distance themselves from this recommendation
but I'm not drinking that Kool-Aid.
Kathy
Karen C.
> Thank you, Janice, for interjecting a sane voice into so many biased
> posts here.
It appears you only think we're "biased" when we don't agree with your
point of view.
> but I'm not sure what President Obama has to do with this decision. I
> mean, that man is not at fault for everything that happens to us.
>
> He's our President, not Superman, for crying out loud. Get a grip,
> people!
My grip on reality is just fine. Health care is being rammed down our
throats. Obama is moving us toward a single-payer health care plan, and
I am far from happy about this. My health insurance ain't perfect, but
it darned sure beats what we'll get when the government's running the show.
Karen C.
Sue -- Firefighter mom, Still UW Dawg fan!
I was going by what I heard when it first hit, on the Today Show. Dr.
Nancy whoever said it was an independent group and named a bunch of
the people and said it included MD Anderson (they do the BRCA testings
etc.) So it was from her that I thought it was not a government test.
She said it was an independent group. They are now saying it was a
government group. I think something is BS here, but I don't know.
Sue M
Anne V
news:4b06d0ca$0$4050$d94e...@news.iglou.com...
I keep trying to understand this issue from the POV of someone who has
decent insurance and who hasn't watched family members suffer due to
inability to obtain insurance, but it's really hard for me. When I hear
people say, "Well, if EVERYBODY has insurance, then the doctors will be too
overcrowded, and we, who are accustomed to getting in to see our doctors
promptly, will have to wait too long." To me, this says, "Hey, if you're an
insurance have-not, then you'll just have to go jump. I got mine!" I'm not
really referring to your comment, Karen, but others that we hear on the
news, even on the street, and it always makes my jaw drop. I have a close
family relative who has Charcot-Marie-Tooth syndrome (a form of muscular
dystrophy), has labile BP, had a stroke a couple of years ago, is within 5
years of being retirement age, and is self-employed. Anybody have great
suggestions as to where he might find an insurer willing to take him? He'll
be the first to tell you, "Good luck with that!"
To me, single payer is the only thing that makes sense. We've all been fed
a lot of scare tactics by the insurance industry, which is much more worried
about the bottom line than the human cost. Sure, there are horror stories
evolving from other countries' single payer systems. I have to laugh when I
hear people saying, "We don't want no guvmint rationing our health care!"
So, what do these folks think their insurance companies do now and have been
doing for years? Do they really believe the insurance companies have the
patients' best interests at heart? I don't believe many people are really
that naive. Maybe more are employed by the health insurance industry than I
realize, though.
Anne
Sue -- Firefighter mom, Still UW Dawg fan!
If you like your insurance KEEP IT. Don't go for single payer. I am
very unhappy with how the health care plan is being written. It is
protecting health care insurance companies WAY too much. They are
squeezing out public option big time. They are cow-towing (sp?) to
republicans too much, they are cutting all women's screening at
requests of republicans. This bill is being raped and pillaged so much
that it will be a huge pay day for insurance companies, nothing for
public option and screwing us because we have bowed down to
republicans who won't vote for it anyway. This is why democrats never
get a damn thing done. They always want to play nice and compromise.
They need to say "screw you" like the republicans and just do what
they want when they have the majority. They are spineless. I think I
will knit a bunch of balls and spines and send them to them. Problem
is they won't know what they are.
What amazes me is the outright lies about what is in the bill have
been spouted by the media and people. Read it, you'll be surprised
what is and is not in it. Now we have to read another one as the
senate came out with there version. Obama has not even come out with
one yet. The house and senate are the only ones who have proposed
health care reform bills.
Sue M
Anne V
government employees (including our representatives) pay for their health
insurance:
http://opm.gov/insure/health/rates/
Click on the links to PDF files from the above page.
I sure wish I could pay those rates!
Anne
Anne V
I was going by what I heard when it first hit, on the Today Show. Dr.
Nancy whoever said it was an independent group and named a bunch of
the people and said it included MD Anderson (they do the BRCA testings
etc.) So it was from her that I thought it was not a government test.
She said it was an independent group. They are now saying it was a
government group. I think something is BS here, but I don't know.
Sue M
From what I read, Sue, it IS a government group, one that's been in
existence since 1984. Although I support our present administration in most
respects, I think they've given themselves a black eye with this one. One
thing I found interesting is that the recommendations they're giving about
mammography is in agreement with the WHO's recommendations. That, I didn't
know, but I'll still opt for yearly mammograms, TYVM!
Anne
Karen C.
> I keep trying to understand this issue from the POV of someone who has
> decent insurance and who hasn't watched family members suffer due to
> inability to obtain insurance, but it's really hard for me. When I hear
> people say, "Well, if EVERYBODY has insurance, then the doctors will be too
> overcrowded, and we, who are accustomed to getting in to see our doctors
> promptly, will have to wait too long." To me, this says, "Hey, if you're an
> insurance have-not, then you'll just have to go jump. I got mine!" I'm not
> really referring to your comment, Karen, but others that we hear on the
> news, even on the street, and it always makes my jaw drop.
It's economics. The problem is that we just can't afford it. If I ran
up debts I couldn't pay, I'd be in deep doo-doo and would lose my house
and the shirt off my back. We can't even pay off the interest on our
national debt. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.
> I have a close
> family relative who has Charcot-Marie-Tooth syndrome (a form of muscular
> dystrophy), has labile BP, had a stroke a couple of years ago, is within 5
> years of being retirement age, and is self-employed. Anybody have great
> suggestions as to where he might find an insurer willing to take him? He'll
> be the first to tell you, "Good luck with that!"
He probably won't be able to draw Social Security and Medicare for long,
either.
Many of us have serious health issues; but SOMEBODY has to pay the bill.
We can't afford a fraction of what they're proposing.
> To me, single payer is the only thing that makes sense. We've all been fed
> a lot of scare tactics by the insurance industry, which is much more worried
> about the bottom line than the human cost.
I'm not listening to the health-insurance industry. It's economics.
The numbers just don't add up. Even if you put the health care aside,
we're still in the red. No matter how you shake the numbers, they don't
add up. The Fed can't keep printing money whenever we need to pay a
bill--which is exactly what they've been doing for quite awhile now.
Sooner or later, our debtors are going to stop giving us loans. Even
the U.S. can only get so much credit.
Karen C.
Karen C.
> If you like your insurance KEEP IT. Don't go for single payer.
I won't be able to. First chance DH's employer gets, they'll go with
the gov't plan.
>This is why democrats never
> get a damn thing done. They always want to play nice and compromise.
> They need to say "screw you" like the republicans and just do what
> they want when they have the majority. They are spineless.
Sheesh! Talk about different points of view! I think the Dems are
hateful, and I think the Reps have no spines.
> What amazes me is the outright lies about what is in the bill have
> been spouted by the media and people. Read it, you'll be surprised
> what is and is not in it. Now we have to read another one as the
> senate came out with there version. Obama has not even come out with
> one yet. The house and senate are the only ones who have proposed
> health care reform bills.
Doesn't matter what the thing has in it. We can't pay for it. Period.
Heck, only a handful of legislators will even bother to read the danged
thing! What a joke!
Karen C.
Sue -- Firefighter mom, Still UW Dawg fan!
Agreed, the fact they don't read it should cost them their job. They
did that with the patriot act of all things!
I type daily people who are on medications that they finally find that
are helping them but they can no longer take because their insurance
company refuses to pay for them. This is "managed" health care
interfering with your health. We all know they turn down surgery and
tests, sometimes waiting too late for patients and having them die.
This happens already with greedy insurance companies.
Sue M
Karen C.
>>> If you like your insurance KEEP IT. Don't go for single payer.
>> I won't be able to. First chance DH's employer gets, they'll go with
>> the gov't plan.
>>
> Agreed, the fact they don't read it should cost them their job. They
> did that with the patriot act of all things!
I just don't understand why they think it's okay to not read bills they
vote on. I mean, isn't the reason we vote them into office so they can
represent us? If they're not even bothering reading the bills, I don't
think they have a right to vote on them--nor do I think we should be
giving them a paycheck. They certainly aren't earning their $$$, IMO.
> I type daily people who are on medications that they finally find that
> are helping them but they can no longer take because their insurance
> company refuses to pay for them. This is "managed" health care
> interfering with your health.
I think everybody's meds and procedures are being cut back, and many of
us are choosing to cut back due to costs. (I know I am very selective
and mindful of the costs these days.) Our rates just went up this
month, and our benefits decreased--as they do every time it's time to
renew the contract.
However, I still wouldn't want the government running the show--even if
we *could* afford it. Every single time I have ever heard of the
government getting its hands on *anything*, it gives us more red tape
and costs a lot more.
Karen C.
medmaw
Personally, I'm more concerned that they comprehend what they're
reading.
Sue -- Firefighter mom, Still UW Dawg fan!
Now there are new guidelines on Pap tests. I think some of these are
already going on, however. No testing before 21 and testing every
other year. Is that it? Or was there more?
Sue M
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
>
> Nancy whoever said it was an independent group and named a bunch of
> the people and said it included MD Anderson (they do the BRCA testings
> etc.) So it was from her that I thought it was not a government test.
> She said it was an independent group. They are now saying it was a
> government group. I think something is BS here, but I don't know.
Well, I know there is a group of people who believe that frequent mammos
can in some way (don't remember the details) bring on or exacerbate or
something breast cancer, so I think it's sort of a tradeoff.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
>
> To me, single payer is the only thing that makes sense. We've all been fed
And to me, the only "national health care" that makes sense is making
basic medical coverage like Medicare/MedicAid/Medi-CAL/whatever
available on a sliding scale to everybody, who are free to get other
insurance if they wish the same as parents are free to send their
children to private schools or get them private tutoring outside of
school if they wish, and then raise the rates that they pay doctors for
Medicare/MedicAid/Medi-CAL/whatever so that doctors will have an
incentive to want to contract with them.
Of course, no matter what anybody does, it's going to be a huge mess for
a while, and hopefully it will all straighten out.
I don't believe that health care is a Scriptural purpose of government
(neither do I believe that education or welfare are Scriptural purposes
of government), so I am watching this with a small degree of interest to
see what's going to happen.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
>
Problem is, I am pretty sure that once there is an alternative, a lot of
employers are going to reduce their health insurance benefits because
they won't have to use them to attract good employees.
I would much rather see insurance companies outlawed and then give
people a credit on their income tax for the money they spend on health
care (this would also eliminate the problem of illegals getting free
health care) rather than have the government get into the health
insurance business, especially seeing that insurance in this country
seems to be run more like a security bond than, say, membership in a
health club where they expect you to use the services.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
And Sue, they also mess with the doctors by authorizing procedures to be
done and then refusing to pay for them after the fact.
Karen C.
> Sue -- Firefighter mom, Still UW Dawg fan! wrote:
> If you like your insurance KEEP IT. Don't go for single payer.
>
> Problem is, I am pretty sure that once there is an alternative, a lot of
> employers are going to reduce their health insurance benefits because
> they won't have to use them to attract good employees.
The way I understand it, the whole purpose of the single-payer system is
to have the federal government (which is those of us who are taxpayers)
pay for the entire nation under one government plan. If Obama has his
way, it will be "Everybody in; nobody out."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk
I suspect we'll ALL be on the national plan within five years, like it
or not.
Karen C.
bob
sam...@TRASHsonic.net says...
Well, under your plan, Marina would be blind and crippled, and possibly
dead and I'd have died a painful death recently due to a ruptured
appendix followed by a massive bacterial infection, because there's no
way we could have afforded to pay cash for all her surgeries or my
appendectomy.
We need insurance of some sort.
Bob/Texas
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
> Well, under your plan, Marina would be blind and crippled, and possibly
> dead and I'd have died a painful death recently due to a ruptured
> appendix followed by a massive bacterial infection, because there's no
> way we could have afforded to pay cash for all her surgeries or my
> appendectomy.
Maybe. If there's no insurance, the prices will drop. But you seemed
to miss my qualifier, which was provided that the government was going
to get into the health insurance business in the way health insurance
businesses are run today for the most part, as opposed to running it
like Kaiser does -- you pay to have membership in Kaiser and then you
can use the facilities that they own.
OTOH, just like people take out loans for cars, houses, plasma TVs,
etc., you could take out a loan to pay for your health needs until you
get your next income tax return, at which point you would get your tax
credit and pay off as much of it as your tax credit gives you.
I am deathly afraid that when people (Not necessarily you, but it's just
what I hear other people's attitudes) say they need health insurance,
they are trying to say that they want somebody else to shoulder the
burden of most or all of the cost of it, and that's just not going to fly.
bob
sam...@TRASHsonic.net says...
>
> bob wrote:
> > Well, under your plan, Marina would be blind and crippled, and possibly
> > dead and I'd have died a painful death recently due to a ruptured
> > appendix followed by a massive bacterial infection, because there's no
> > way we could have afforded to pay cash for all her surgeries or my
> > appendectomy.
>
> Maybe. If there's no insurance, the prices will drop. But you seemed
I don't think prices will drop enough to allow most people to afford to
remain healthy. Why? How will the Doctors that have hundreds of
thousands of dollars in medical school bills pay off their loans? The
price may eventually come down for medical school, but that won't do
anything to help all the Doctors who have those loans. Also, not only do
the Doctors via their thinly-disguised unions limit the influx of new
Doctors, but so does the federal government by limiting the number of
medical schools that can exist at any one time.
Then there's the cost of medications. The so-called health care reform
bills all extend the length of patents on medications, making it harder
for generics to come onto the market. I couldn't afford all the meds
Marina and I take if I had to pay full retail for them.
Last but not least, there's hospitals. The federal government limits the
number of hospitals allowed to be built in any given area. This prevents
effective price competition.
> to miss my qualifier, which was provided that the government was going
> to get into the health insurance business in the way health insurance
> businesses are run today for the most part, as opposed to running it
> like Kaiser does -- you pay to have membership in Kaiser and then you
> can use the facilities that they own.
>
None of the proposed health care reform bills change that, so why should
I expect it to be any different?
> OTOH, just like people take out loans for cars, houses, plasma TVs,
> etc., you could take out a loan to pay for your health needs until you
> get your next income tax return, at which point you would get your tax
> credit and pay off as much of it as your tax credit gives you.
>
You are assuming that everyone can get such a loan at a reasonable
interest rate. If someone has less that stellar credit, who do you think
will be willing to give someone a loan for an expensive treatment and at
what interest rate, especially in economic conditions like we have now?
I just read on Yahoo or somewhere that the majority of new foreclosures
are not people with sub-prime loans, but people with standard
conventional loans, people who have excellent credit. Why? Because
through no fault of their own, these people are losing their jobs. What
happens if I can't make the loan payment on my appendectomy? There's no
collateral like on an auto or house loan.
How do you get people who are brought into the ER unconscious to sign
for a loan?
I'm afraid your idea just won't work.
Bob/Texas
Anne V
"bob" <nottoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.257351fee...@news.eternal-september.org...
| | You are assuming that everyone can get such a loan at a reasonable
| interest rate. If someone has less that stellar credit, who do you think
| will be willing to give someone a loan for an expensive treatment and at
| what interest rate, especially in economic conditions like we have now?
| I just read on Yahoo or somewhere that the majority of new foreclosures
| are not people with sub-prime loans, but people with standard
| conventional loans, people who have excellent credit. Why? Because
| through no fault of their own, these people are losing their jobs. What
| happens if I can't make the loan payment on my appendectomy? There's no
| collateral like on an auto or house loan.
|
| How do you get people who are brought into the ER unconscious to sign
| for a loan?
|
| I'm afraid your idea just won't work.
I bet it would be interesting to try to get a loan for treatment of invasive
cancer.
Anne
bob
@NOSPAMyahoo.com says...
Anne,
That's very true.
Health care has gotten so much better over the past 50+ years that there
are now very effective treatments for things that used to be considered
fatal. They are also expensive. We already have various forms of
rationing, but I don't think people would accept a return to the pre-
insurance days.
Bob/Texas
Anne V
|| Health care has gotten so much better over the past 50+ years that there
| are now very effective treatments for things that used to be considered
| fatal. They are also expensive. We already have various forms of
| rationing, but I don't think people would accept a return to the pre-
| insurance days.
|
| Bob/Texas
|
No kidding. For one, look at the difference in life expectancy for HIV
patients these days, not to mention a lot of cancers, leukemias, heart
disease, etc.
Anne
Marsha
> anything to help all the Doctors who have those loans. Also, not only do
> the Doctors via their thinly-disguised unions limit the influx of new
> Doctors, but so does the federal government by limiting the number of
> medical schools that can exist at any one time.
Don't know about other specialities, but open-heart surgery hasn't
filled all of it's openings in years.
Marsha
Marsha
In all of the discussions I've seen, there is usually no mention of
personal responsibility. We're already paying through the nose for
medical care for smokers, obesity, non-compliant with meds and/or other
recommendations of their doctor, babies having babies, illegals, etc.
In England, if you have bypass surgery and continue to smoke, you don't
get another shot at surgery. And can I mention tort reform again???
Marsha
Phyllis
is no guarantee your friend would have insurance even if it passes. There
is just not enough money.
Phyllis
bills to pay off . . . he is 90 years old and one of the best doctors I've
ever had.
Sue -- Firefighter mom, Still UW Dawg fan!
> Anne V wrote:
> > "bob" <nottooslo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I don't like seeing blanket comments about obesity etc. I am
overweight. Have been all my life (at least most of it). I have
perfect BP. Cholesterol all perfect numbers except triglycerides with
are high normal but are still within normal range. Blood sugars and
A1c always normal. I know I am pressing my luck but at 61, I piss a
lot of docs off when they see my test results. I have even had them do
my BP several times. It is very frustrating. The thing is we don't eat
that poorly, I just sit and work all day and don't get a lot of
exercise. But anyway, when you blankedly assume every one is a drain
to the system if they are obese it is not true. I have a thin sister
who has a medical file you would need to weigh and measure. She is a
hypochondriac. Has nothing wrong. Eats horrible. Is not on bp meds yet
but her cholesterol is bad, not medicated yet. She has the opposite
problem, everyone assumes she is in perfect health and she feels like
crap. (She will eat M&Ms for breakfast and lunch and then feel sick
and not able to eat dinner or just pick at dinner). This is why,
obviously, she is sick. Every time someone dies or is sick and they
say how that person felt before they died or how they feel when they
are sick she says, Oh my God that is just how I feel I wonder if that
is what I have. (I honestly thought she was kidding the first time she
said that. I had to have my older sister pull me aside to tell me she
is actually serious when she says that). So not all obese people are
draining the system and not all skinny people are NOT draining the
system. :) Not ranting just making a statement of fact! :)
Sue M
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
>
> Health care has gotten so much better over the past 50+ years that there
> are now very effective treatments for things that used to be considered
> fatal. They are also expensive. We already have various forms of
> rationing, but I don't think people would accept a return to the pre-
> insurance days.
Well, someone has to pay for the ever-increasing cost of high-tech
medicine, and I am afraid that a lot of people just don't want to pay
the full cost of their health care but want it just the same.
Personally, I don't want to see that cost added onto the debt that
government is now carrying.
Rae
wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:06:28 -0800 (PST), "Sue -- Firefighter mom,
> Still UW Dawg fan!" <medlawtr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 18, 9:41�am, "LizzieB." <es...@b10mediawork.com> wrote:
> >> Judity wrote:
> >> > ((I sure would like to know what Obama and the present administration
> >> > has to do with this. �))
>
> >> > Thank you, Janice, for interjecting a sane voice into so many biased
> >> > posts here.
>
> >> Fuck you, Judity. Since you're so dead set on posting inflammatory shit
> >> and then act all surprised and outraged and shocked and holier-than-thou
> >> over the "biased" answers you get, I'm killfiling you.
>
> >> You're just looking for a fight and I'm not going to participate.
> >> Goodbye SMT. Thank Judity and her passive-aggressive hostility.
>
> >> --
> >> LizzieB.
>
> >> After six years of MT, I've caught a suspicious case of ennui.
> >> This is how I've been amusing myself in my MT malaise:
>
> >>http://theproviso.comhttp://b10mediaworx.com
>
> >> To mail, replace the k with an x.
>
> >WTF?
>
> >Sue M
>
> Looks as though LizzieB, like many others here, find the sanctimonious
> drivel to be tiresome!
>
> BS- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Looks to me like more than one person is off their medication. That
response to Judity was way out of line. Inflammatory? After she's lost
one sister to breast cancer and has had a second diagnosed with it?
Whether one agrees with her post or not, that response was totally
uncalled for.
Sue -- Firefighter mom, Still UW Dawg fan!
#1 I'm trying to see what was inflammatory about her post, didn't see
it. #2 agree with you completely, Rae. No dang wonder SMT has been
blah with no discussions lately.
Sue M
bob
phyllis...@buckeye-express.com says...
>
> Do what I do, Bob. I go to a doctor who doesn't have any medical school
> bills to pay off . . . he is 90 years old and one of the best doctors I've
> ever had.
Hi Phyllis,
My internist founded the internist group he practices in and hasn't had
any medical school bills for quite a while.
Bob/Texas