Democrats Want to Ration Health Care
Joe Bruno
Doctors will be punished for performing too many tests and procedures
on people with heart disease. Guess they figure when those people die,
they won't be expensive anymore.
These people are vultures.
Joe Bruno
Oh, they also want to limit care to cancer patients.(Oncology)
Clairbear
35e232...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
zi thought that one dem congressman told it was the Republican health care
plan was to just die so as to save us money I guess the dems know a money
saving idea when they see one but the still are doing nothing to stiffle
their trial lawyer buddies contribution to med costs
Stile4aly
a) This article is talking about the Baucus bill. Is the same measure
present in the merged bill?
b) I thought the argument for tort reform was that it would help
eliminate unnecessary tests. Doesn't this have the same effect?
c) This article makes the fundamental mistake of confusing a
percentage with a percentile. Let's say we have a hundred doctors all
performing tests. This article suggests that no matter what, those 10
doctors spending the most will have their reimbursements cut. That
would be true if one was calculating based on a percentage, but what's
being suggested is basing the calculation on a percentile. That is to
say that if the average doctor is spending $1M on tests and there is a
standard deviation of $250K, then any doctor spending over
approximately 1.4 million would be above that 90th percentile. It is
possible for all doctors to spend less than 1.4 million and thus have
no one end up with a reduced reimbursement.
TrekBear
The payment system for medical services is skewed, to say the least.
If we pay providers: doctors, hospitals, etc to keep people health
instead of paying them to test everything under the sun, we, as a
nation will save lives and money.
Mitchell Holman
35e232...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 21, 12:16�pm, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
And private insurance companies don't?
Enkidu
Health care is already rationed. The poor don't get it, and they die.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken
fla...@verizon.net
On 21-Nov-2009, TrekBear <jwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The payment system for medical services is skewed, to say the least.
> If we pay providers: doctors, hospitals, etc to keep people health
> instead of paying them to test everything under the sun, we, as a
> nation will save lives and money.
The theory is also that if everyone gets health care,
less leeches will help keep medical caosts down.
*This* is the problem: we either pay for universal
health care with our taxes, or we pay for them with
higher prices.
(Of course, the other problem is when doctors
decide to raise their rates *anyway*....)
Susan
Joe Bruno
The limits are also on life-saving procedures, not just tests.
Sometimes testing is required to know how to treat people.
My brother was tested only once and they called his problem a skin
disease.
Turns out he had Leukemia. He died 6 months later. If they had caught
it in time, he might have been saved.
My brother in law was tested and they said he had just prostate
cancer.
They did nothing more. Turns out the cancer metastasized all over and
he died from massive tumors all over his body.
MarkA
Rationing is the logical way to distribute resources when demand exceeds
supply. The alternative, currently in use, is the richest get the most,
the poorer get whatever's left.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
MarkA
That's terrible. We should spend every penny we have to squeeze every
last second of life out of every terminally ill patient. It's not like
the money could otherwise be used to vaccinate children or something
equally worthless!
Dänk 1010011010
This sounds like the 'preventative' medicine that Obama proposes, but
consider the implications. Many people CHOOSE unhealthy lifestyles
that result in expensive but preventable diseases like diabetes, heart
disease, lung cancer, liver failure, etc.
Most people already know that sitting on their butts while stuffing
their faces with nachos and beer all day is unhealthy. Supporters of
Obamacare want to believe that the 'prevention' involves an
'educational' lecture from the doctor, causing the patient to see the
light and voluntarily CHOOSE to eat right and exercise more. But
there won't be any choice, the patient will be COERCED into modifying
his lifestyle.
To prevent expensive obesity-related diseases like diabetes and heart
disease, people must eat right and exercise more. People are lazy and
are not going to do this unless they are forced to. One idea is to
impose hefty taxes fats and sugars, to price unhealthy junk foods out
of the reach of ignorant proles, using economics to coerce the desired
eating habits.
Getting people to exercise is more difficult, though it might involve
negative reinforcement techniques such as shock collars (a subject who
fails to spend enough time in an exercise wheel is punished with
electrocution), or positive reinforcement techniques (such as
rewarding time in the exercise wheel with a dose of caffeine, cocaine,
or television).
If this sounds a bit creepy, it should, since is this how we treat
domesticated animals. Your pet dog doesn't get to choose what he
eats: he eats the ration of nutritious low-fat kibble you give him,
and he you take him for a walk whether he likes it or not.
Thus we see the totalitarian nature of socialism, since it dehumanizes
people by depriving them of their freedom, 'caring' for them by
treating them like a herd of cattle.
Wayne
"MarkA" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11.22....@nowhere.com...
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:16:22 -0800, Joe Bruno wrote:
>
>> http://capoliticalnews.com/blog_post/show/3618
>>
>> Doctors will be punished for performing too many tests and procedures on
>> people with heart disease. Guess they figure when those people die, they
>> won't be expensive anymore.
>>
>> These people are vultures.
>
> Rationing is the logical way to distribute resources when demand exceeds
> supply. The alternative, currently in use, is the richest get the most,
> the poorer get whatever's left.
>
done by insurance companies". Instead of FIXING whatever issues there are
with insurance companies, liberals want to INCREASE rationing by getting the
gummint involved in an astonomically expensive boondoggle.
The recent trial baloons of mammograms and pap smears are just a minor
indicator of what the gummint has in store for us.
Stile4aly
> "MarkA" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2009.11.22....@nowhere.com...> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:16:22 -0800, Joe Bruno wrote:
>
> >>http://capoliticalnews.com/blog_post/show/3618
>
> >> Doctors will be punished for performing too many tests and procedures on
> >> people with heart disease. Guess they figure when those people die, they
> >> won't be expensive anymore.
>
> >> These people are vultures.
>
> > Rationing is the logical way to distribute resources when demand exceeds
> > supply. The alternative, currently in use, is the richest get the most,
> > the poorer get whatever's left.
>
> There is a problem with the liberal chant "we have rationing now...it is
> done by insurance companies". Instead of FIXING whatever issues there are
> with insurance companies, liberals want to INCREASE rationing by getting the
> gummint involved in an astonomically expensive boondoggle.
So, you believe the solution to the problem is to increase the supply
so it is essentially limitless. The problem with this is that unlike
a traditional commodity, an increase in supply does not result in a
decrease in price. It costs the same amount of money to run an MRI
whether you have 1 available machine or 10 available machines. So, if
you increase supply unnecessarily then you increase cost
unnecessarily. The scare word "rationing" is thrown around because
the implication is always that it is *your* care that will be
rationed.
> The recent trial baloons of mammograms and pap smears are just a minor
> indicator of what the gummint has in store for us.
So, you believe that medical efficacy should not be a factor in
determining best practices for the industry? If fewer pap smears do
as good a job at cervical cancer detection, then why not recommend
fewer pap smears?
Wayne
"Stile4aly" <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c969d792-667e-497b...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Wayne
"Stile4aly" <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c969d792-667e-497b...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> "MarkA" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2009.11.22....@nowhere.com...> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009
> 12:16:22 -0800, Joe Bruno wrote:
>
> >>http://capoliticalnews.com/blog_post/show/3618
>
> >> Doctors will be punished for performing too many tests and procedures
> >> on
> >> people with heart disease. Guess they figure when those people die,
> >> they
> >> won't be expensive anymore.
>
> >> These people are vultures.
>
> > Rationing is the logical way to distribute resources when demand exceeds
> > supply. The alternative, currently in use, is the richest get the most,
> > the poorer get whatever's left.
>
> There is a problem with the liberal chant "we have rationing now...it is
> done by insurance companies". Instead of FIXING whatever issues there are
> with insurance companies, liberals want to INCREASE rationing by getting
> the
> gummint involved in an astonomically expensive boondoggle.
<So, you believe the solution to the problem is to increase the supply
<so it is essentially limitless. The problem with this is that unlike
<a traditional commodity, an increase in supply does not result in a
<decrease in price. It costs the same amount of money to run an MRI
<whether you have 1 available machine or 10 available machines. So, if
<you increase supply unnecessarily then you increase cost
<unnecessarily. The scare word "rationing" is thrown around because
<the implication is always that it is *your* care that will be
<rationed.
What ARE you talking about. It appears that you are attacking your own
argument. The problem happens when the government is involved. The
government oversight and administration will be outrageously expensive.
OTOH, millions of unnecessary jobs will be created.
> The recent trial baloons of mammograms and pap smears are just a minor
> indicator of what the gummint has in store for us.
*****
<So, you believe that medical efficacy should not be a factor in
<determining best practices for the industry? If fewer pap smears do
<as good a job at cervical cancer detection, then why not recommend
<fewer pap smears?
-
There is an enormous "IF" in your logic. I use a HMO, and they do a very
good job of keeping their cost low by logical use of early detection
practices. We don't need the government in the middle of that finely tuned
loop.
Stile4aly
> "Stile4aly" <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Why is it, then, that the administrative costs for Medicare and
Medicaid are less than the administrative costs for private
insurance? My point in the supply/demand argument is that you're
saying liberals refuse to fix the current rationing problem, by which
I assume you mean that we must do away with rationing altogether. The
reason rationing occurs is because demand outweighs supply, so the
only way to eliminate it would be to increase supply to the point
where it exceeds demand. If medical care were a commodity like gold
or wheat then this would result in a decease in cost, which would be
desirable. However, because it is not a commodity, this fix does not
hold.
So, if increasing supply is not your solution and I have
misrepresented your position, I apologize. What is your solution to
the problem?
> > The recent trial baloons of mammograms and pap smears are just a minor
> > indicator of what the gummint has in store for us.
>
> *****
> <So, you believe that medical efficacy should not be a factor in
> <determining best practices for the industry? If fewer pap smears do
> <as good a job at cervical cancer detection, then why not recommend
> <fewer pap smears?
> -
> There is an enormous "IF" in your logic. I use a HMO, and they do a very
> good job of keeping their cost low by logical use of early detection
> practices. We don't need the government in the middle of that finely tuned
> loop
So, if a panel of experts says that a certain procedure can be more
effectively prescribed, that advice is worthless just because it's a
panel assembled by the government?
Herman Rubin
Stile4aly <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 21, 1:19=A0pm, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >http://capoliticalnews.com/blog_post/show/3618
>> > These people are vultures.
I suggest you forget about the normal distribution.
Whatever is spent, 10% of doctors will be above the
90th percentile. That is the definition of percentile.
What are unnecessary tests? There is, and will be, a
huge difference of opinion. I have at one time refused
to take an MRI, after the doctor told me that the
treatment for anything found would be therapy, and I
believed that the healing process had not been completed.
I was right.
Recently, I refused a colonoscopy because I was reasonably
sure that it would not find the problem. Fortunately, the
doctor is retiring so I do not have to fire him.
However, there was an occasion where I requested an MRI,
and it also found nothing. The number of things which may
be the cause of a problem is sufficiently large that most
tests will not reveal much. Medicine is not much more
advanced than Roman engineering; some Roman aqueducts are
still in use.
As for the use of statistics in deciding, what is proposed
is the religious misuse of statistics in medicine. The
real problem here is that the benefit and risk in health
goes to the patient, the benefit in money goes to the
medical profession, and the cost is elsewhere. There is no
"rational" way of balancing these, and stupid laws which
give power to stupid bureaucrats will not help.
Unless congress prohibits private practice, that is where
the good doctors will go, eschewing government-based medical
regulations.
We should insist that any legislation restricting what
medical care ANYONE can get apply to all congressmen
voting for it, with no provision for them going outside
the government-run system to get additional care. They
should put their money where their mouths are, not the
money of the people who earned it.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Herman Rubin
>> http://capoliticalnews.com/blog_post/show/3618
>> Doctors will be punished for performing too many tests and procedures on
>> people with heart disease. Guess they figure when those people die, they
>> won't be expensive anymore.
>> These people are vultures.
>Rationing is the logical way to distribute resources when demand exceeds
>supply. The alternative, currently in use, is the richest get the most,
>the poorer get whatever's left.
That is as it should be. There needs to be strong
rewards offered, or nobody would even try.
Stile4aly
> In article <aa4dd014-1267-4cf2-8f81-158d786bd...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Why is that? Would reason would there be for medical spending in a
particular specialty not to be distributed normally? Perhaps you
would need to restrict your observation to similar Metropolitan
Service Areas or Rural Service Areas, but I don't see why a
neurologist in Phoenix should be operating under a different set of
pricing assumptions than a neurologist in Richmond.
> Whatever is spent, 10% of doctors will be above the
> 90th percentile. That is the definition of percentile.
You're right, I've mixed up my terms. I mean to say the percentage
variation to the mean.
> What are unnecessary tests? There is, and will be, a
> huge difference of opinion. I have at one time refused
> to take an MRI, after the doctor told me that the
> treatment for anything found would be therapy, and I
> believed that the healing process had not been completed.
> I was right.
If the doctor was recommending a test that would have no impact on the
treatment options, then that would strike me as an unnecessary test as
it would be a non-diagnostic test.
> Recently, I refused a colonoscopy because I was reasonably
> sure that it would not find the problem. Fortunately, the
> doctor is retiring so I do not have to fire him.
Without knowing any details I can't say whether this would be an
unnecessary test or not. However, if you desired not to have the test
that is your decision. My aunt who is in her late 80s recently
refused a nuclear stress test to determine if her heart problems have
worsened because she doesn't particularly care to undergo surgery if
that's what the test determines. Now, the fact that she's free to
make that decision would probably be characterized as some as a death
panel.
> However, there was an occasion where I requested an MRI,
> and it also found nothing. The number of things which may
> be the cause of a problem is sufficiently large that most
> tests will not reveal much. Medicine is not much more
> advanced than Roman engineering; some Roman aqueducts are
> still in use.
I propose that your opinion of the state of modern medicine is not
accurate.
> As for the use of statistics in deciding, what is proposed
> is the religious misuse of statistics in medicine. The
> real problem here is that the benefit and risk in health
> goes to the patient, the benefit in money goes to the
> medical profession, and the cost is elsewhere. There is no
> "rational" way of balancing these, and stupid laws which
> give power to stupid bureaucrats will not help.
It's somewhat disturbing to see that a career statistician so
distrusts his own field. Why would it be that a population of people
who undergo a mammogram yearly could not be compared against a
population that received a biannual mammogram and determine the
comparative detection rates of breast cancer? If there is no
statistical difference between the detection rates, then what is wrong
in recommending (note, not mandating) that people move to biannual
mammograms?
> Unless congress prohibits private practice, that is where
> the good doctors will go, eschewing government-based medical
> regulations.
Even doctors in private practice must adhere to standards of practice
and governmental regulation unless they wish to avoid malpractice.
> We should insist that any legislation restricting what
> medical care ANYONE can get apply to all congressmen
> voting for it, with no provision for them going outside
> the government-run system to get additional care. They
> should put their money where their mouths are, not the
> money of the people who earned it.
Congressmen and Senators already participate in a government run
plan. They're quite happy with it. Senator McCain (one of my
Senators) has often chosen to use his government health care to take
care of his occasional bouts with skin cancer rather than use his VA
benefits or his wife's private insurance.
Wayne
,<Why is it, then, that the administrative costs for Medicare and
<Medicaid are less than the administrative costs for private
<insurance? My point in the supply/demand argument is that you're
<saying liberals refuse to fix the current rationing problem, by which
<I assume you mean that we must do away with rationing altogether. The
<reason rationing occurs is because demand outweighs supply, so the
<only way to eliminate it would be to increase supply to the point
<where it exceeds demand. If medical care were a commodity like gold
<or wheat then this would result in a decease in cost, which would be
<desirable. However, because it is not a commodity, this fix does not
<hold.
<
<So, if increasing supply is not your solution and I have
<misrepresented your position, I apologize. What is your solution to
<the problem?
Well, I propose to fix the private system without getting the government in
the healthcare insurance business. Why are government administrative cost
less than private insurance? Well, assuming that your declaration is
correct, the reason is that the government drives private insurance and
medical providers to higher costs with the strings that are attached to
getting Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. And, I wouldn't put either
Medicare or Medicare up there as an example of a well run government
program.
> > The recent trial baloons of mammograms and pap smears are just a minor
> > indicator of what the gummint has in store for us.
>
> *****
> <So, you believe that medical efficacy should not be a factor in
> <determining best practices for the industry? If fewer pap smears do
> <as good a job at cervical cancer detection, then why not recommend
> <fewer pap smears?
> -
> There is an enormous "IF" in your logic. I use a HMO, and they do a very
> good job of keeping their cost low by logical use of early detection
> practices. We don't need the government in the middle of that finely tuned
> loop
**********
<So, if a panel of experts says that a certain procedure can be more
<effectively prescribed, that advice is worthless just because it's a
<panel assembled by the government?
-
Well.....yes.
Frank Galikanokus
the gummint as you so ignorantly put it, had nothing to do with these
recommendations.
The medical professionals that produced the reports work independent of
our government.
JAM
Stile4aly
That's a rather meaningless platitude. What specific proposals do you
believe would increase access and bend the cost curve downwards?
> Why are government administrative cost
> less than private insurance? Well, assuming that your declaration is
> correct, the reason is that the government drives private insurance and
> medical providers to higher costs with the strings that are attached to
> getting Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement.
You're mixing up providers (doctors), who have to go through some
amount of paperwork to request reimbursement, with insurers. Medicare
is an insurer. The administrative costs per capita associated with
Medicare are less than the administrative costs per capita with a
private insurer like United Healthcare. Since UHC's costs are not
affected by Medicare's costs, why do "strings that are attached to
getting Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement" have anything to do with
UHC?
> And, I wouldn't put either
> Medicare or Medicare up there as an example of a well run government
> program.
Aside from the fact that it's not properly funded (docfix being the
prime issue) what reason do you have to say that it's not well run?
> > > The recent trial baloons of mammograms and pap smears are just a minor
> > > indicator of what the gummint has in store for us.
>
> > *****
> > <So, you believe that medical efficacy should not be a factor in
> > <determining best practices for the industry? If fewer pap smears do
> > <as good a job at cervical cancer detection, then why not recommend
> > <fewer pap smears?
> > -
> > There is an enormous "IF" in your logic. I use a HMO, and they do a very
> > good job of keeping their cost low by logical use of early detection
> > practices. We don't need the government in the middle of that finely tuned
> > loop
>
> **********
> <So, if a panel of experts says that a certain procedure can be more
> <effectively prescribed, that advice is worthless just because it's a
> <panel assembled by the government?
> -
> Well.....yes.
And aside from political ideology, what medical expertise do you bring
to the table to reject the recommendations out of hand?
Stile4aly
> In article <pan.2009.11.22.17.56.25.111...@nowhere.com>,
>
> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:16:22 -0800, Joe Bruno wrote:
> >>http://capoliticalnews.com/blog_post/show/3618
> >> Doctors will be punished for performing too many tests and procedures on
> >> people with heart disease. Guess they figure when those people die, they
> >> won't be expensive anymore.
> >> These people are vultures.
> >Rationing is the logical way to distribute resources when demand exceeds
> >supply. The alternative, currently in use, is the richest get the most,
> >the poorer get whatever's left.
>
> That is as it should be. There needs to be strong
> rewards offered, or nobody would even try.
I guess the kids born with cystic fibrosis should have just tried
harder.
Herman Rubin
In article <50711445-9e31-49d7...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Stile4aly <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 12:04=A0pm, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>> In article <aa4dd014-1267-4cf2-8f81-158d786bd...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Stile4aly =A0<stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 21, 1:19=3DA0pm, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 21, 12:16=3DA0pm, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >> >http://capoliticalnews.com/blog_post/show/3618
>> >> > Doctors will be punished for performing too many tests and procedure=
>s
>> >> > on people with heart disease. Guess they figure when those people di=
>e,
>> >> > they won't be expensive anymore.
>> >> > These people are vultures.
>> >> Oh, they also want to limit care to cancer patients.(Oncology)
>> >a) This article is talking about the Baucus bill. =A0Is the same measure
>> >present in the merged bill?
>> >b) I thought the argument for tort reform was that it would help
>> >eliminate unnecessary tests. =A0Doesn't this have the same effect?
No. Tort reform might have an effect on eliminating tests
which a doctor performs because of a possible suit.
What is an unnecessary test? It is impossible to define it,
unless you limit it to those tests whose results which will
have NO effect on the treatment or the patient's health.
>> >c) This article makes the fundamental mistake of confusing a
>> >percentage with a percentile. =A0Let's say we have a hundred doctors all
>> >performing tests. =A0This article suggests that no matter what, those 10
>> >doctors spending the most will have their reimbursements cut. =A0That
>> >would be true if one was calculating based on a percentage, but what's
>> >being suggested is basing the calculation on a percentile. =A0That is to
>> >say that if the average doctor is spending $1M on tests and there is a
>> >standard deviation of $250K, then any doctor spending over
>> >approximately 1.4 million would be above that 90th percentile. =A0It is
>> >possible for all doctors to spend less than 1.4 million and thus have
>> >no one end up with a reduced reimbursement.
>> I suggest you forget about the normal distribution. =A0
>Why is that? Would reason would there be for medical spending in a
>particular specialty not to be distributed normally?
Nothing is distributed normally.
Perhaps you
>would need to restrict your observation to similar Metropolitan
>Service Areas or Rural Service Areas, but I don't see why a
>neurologist in Phoenix should be operating under a different set of
>pricing assumptions than a neurologist in Richmond.
There are lots of reasons.
>> Whatever is spent, 10% of doctors will =A0be above the
>> 90th percentile. =A0That is the definition of percentile.
>You're right, I've mixed up my terms. I mean to say the percentage
>variation to the mean.
Also, the doctors with the large number of tests are likely
to be the ones treating those which other doctors have not
been successful with. Master mechanics are likely to make
more tests than oil changers.
>> What are unnecessary tests? =A0There is, and will be, a
>> huge difference of opinion. =A0I have at one time refused
>> to take an MRI, after the doctor told me that the
>> treatment for anything found would be therapy, and I
>> believed that the healing process had not been completed.
>> I was right.
>If the doctor was recommending a test that would have no impact on the
>treatment options, then that would strike me as an unnecessary test as
>it would be a non-diagnostic test.
It would be diagnostic, and probably affect the specific
treatment. But if that was the case, it could wait.
>> Recently, I refused a colonoscopy because I was reasonably
>> sure that it would not find the problem. =A0Fortunately, the
>> doctor is retiring so I do not have to fire him.
>Without knowing any details I can't say whether this would be an
>unnecessary test or not. However, if you desired not to have the test
>that is your decision. My aunt who is in her late 80s recently
>refused a nuclear stress test to determine if her heart problems have
>worsened because she doesn't particularly care to undergo surgery if
>that's what the test determines. Now, the fact that she's free to
>make that decision would probably be characterized as some as a death
>panel.
I have had several of those; they did show something, but
nothing worth treating at the time.
>> However, there was an occasion where I requested an MRI,
>> and it also found nothing. =A0The number of things which may
>> be the cause of a problem is sufficiently large that most
>> tests will not reveal much. =A0Medicine is not much more
>> advanced than Roman engineering; some Roman aqueducts are
>> still in use.
>I propose that your opinion of the state of modern medicine is not
>accurate.
Alas, it is.
>> As for the use of statistics in deciding, what is proposed
>> is the religious misuse of statistics in medicine. =A0The
>> real problem here is that the benefit and risk in health
>> goes to the patient, the benefit in money goes to the
>> medical profession, and the cost is elsewhere. =A0There is no
>> "rational" way of balancing these, and stupid laws which
>> give power to stupid bureaucrats will not help.
>It's somewhat disturbing to see that a career statistician so
>distrusts his own field.
Read what I wrote. The people using statistics in medicine
rarely understand the basics of statistics. From what you
have written here, it looks like you had some methods
courses without any of the underlying theory. In fact,
this has become quite popular lately, even at the Ph.D.
level; this is not unusual in our current educational system.
Why would it be that a population of people
>who undergo a mammogram yearly could not be compared against a
>population that received a biannual mammogram and determine the
>comparative detection rates of breast cancer? If there is no
>statistical difference between the detection rates, then what is wrong
>in recommending (note, not mandating) that people move to biannual
>mammograms?
There is no question that mammography detects breast cancer
earlier than other methods. Doing one every week would
detect many cancers earlier; it would also have other
consequences, mostly unpleasant, besides being expensive.
But that was not the question; the recommendation was to
start mammograms 10 years later for most women. The panel
was quite aware that this would result in more cancers
being undetected until serious or even untreatable; it is
unclear as to the other consequences.
>> Unless congress prohibits private practice, that is where
>> the good doctors will go, eschewing government-based medical
>> regulations. =A0
>Even doctors in private practice must adhere to standards of practice
>and governmental regulation unless they wish to avoid malpractice.
Having some knowledge of the problems, these standards of
practice are often very bad practice. Scientists, not
technicians, should decide, and going "outside the box"
should be encouraged, with the knowledge and consent of
the patient. As to government regulation, there was a
case where the government gave some physicians a hard time
because they used an unapproved artificial heart; weather
kept the approved one from arriving in time. Doctors are
rarely scientists.
>> We should insist that any legislation restricting what
>> medical care ANYONE can get apply to all congressmen
>> voting for it, with no provision for them going outside
>> the government-run system to get additional care. =A0They
>> should put their money where their mouths are, not the
>> money of the people who earned it.
>Congressmen and Senators already participate in a government run
>plan. They're quite happy with it. Senator McCain (one of my
>Senators) has often chosen to use his government health care to take
>care of his occasional bouts with skin cancer rather than use his VA
>benefits or his wife's private insurance.
They have access to doctors which an ordinary citizen would
not be able to. What I am proposing is that they not get
ANY access to medical facilities which someone without any
government connections cannot get. If I were on the faculty
of George Washington University, I would not be able to get
that treatment under any proposed plan. Also, I doubt if any
of the proposed health plans would change that.
MarkA
In case you hadn't noticed, many other industrialized countries have
nationalized health care, and it results in lower overall cost and
superior outcomes, plus the fact that people don't go bankrupt because
they lose their job and/or become seriously ill. Sadly, however, in
America, we will most likely end up with some demented hybrid of private
insurance with or without a 'public option', because designing a truly
rational system with lower cost and improved outcomes as the primary
goals would tread on the toes of too many powerful special interest groups.
--
MarkA
Keeper of the Butter Dish of Balshazar
Wayne
the US for treatment of serious problems?
Budikka666
Yeah, that's right - that's why they're fighting tooth and nail to
include the public option that the majority of the country want but
which the Republicans are desperate to deny everyone.
Get a fucking clue you ignorant asswipe puppet.
Budikka
Herman Rubin
>> "Stile4aly" <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:c969d792-667e-497b...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 23, 9:33 am, "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> "MarkA" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2009.11.22....@nowhere.com...> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009
>>> 12:16:22 -0800, Joe Bruno wrote:
>>> >>http://capoliticalnews.com/blog_post/show/3618
....................
>In case you hadn't noticed, many other industrialized countries have
>nationalized health care, and it results in lower overall cost and
>superior outcomes, plus the fact that people don't go bankrupt because
>they lose their job and/or become seriously ill. Sadly, however, in
>America, we will most likely end up with some demented hybrid of private
>insurance with or without a 'public option', because designing a truly
>rational system with lower cost and improved outcomes as the primary
>goals would tread on the toes of too many powerful special interest groups.
NO "insurance" of the usual type will stop these bankruptcies,
only real insurance, for major costs, will do that.
I doubt that there would be much opposition to putting in that
type of insurance, even if it comes from taxes. This is not
the same as prepaid medical care, for routine events.
MarkA
Because our system is tuned to serve the wealthy. If you have the $$$ to
go half way around the world to get a kidney, this is the place to come!
That's why the wealthy think the current system is fine and dandy. It's
the other 99% of people who could use an upgrade.
Hope for the Heartless
hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
But "prepaid healthcare" run by the government WORKS better, because it
also provides preventative care for people who couldn't otherwise afford
it. It DOES prevent medical bankruptcies. It saves lives and it costs
less than the mostly-employer-funded type of insurance most Americans
have.
Hope for the Heartless
"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
> So if their healthcare is sooooo great....then why do they try to come to
> the US for treatment of serious problems?
That's pretty unusual.