It means that once the insurance company coffers are emptied of $5,000,000, (paid for by society) Which is the "burden on society"
But the
Yep, but is it really worth it to spend $5,000,000 on one life. If you say yes, ponder this. Lets just take 200 lives that spent $5,000,000 in healthcare. Save that $1,000,000,000 and spend it wisely in Africa to supply proper nutrition. I bet 500,000 lives could be saved vs a measly 200 here. So, what is a life worth?
I'm not sure what you are referencing with your question. If you mean the insurance plans under Obamacare those are Monthly premiums for a family of four. Bronze $1,358 and Silver $1,617 Bay county, Florida. Yes different costs for counties and states. I went through F.O.A.D.s Maryland Healthcare website and found very similar prices. That's the RATE SHOCK that people are talking about.
In breast cancer the situation is similar, the mortality rate there is also lower in the US than countries with socialized medicine such as Canada or the UK.
In the US they also do colon scans in addition past a certain age. It's efficient, works almost like a conveyor belt. Pretty modern technology and they let me witness my own scan via a patient-side monitor. I was surprised how fast the technician was speeding the probe through the intestine. But a doctor looks at that later and can slow down or zoom in when he/she suspects something.
In some states there are more people who refuse scanning or treatment. Beats me why. It's sad, I know a person whose cancer spread because of that and it does not look good right now.
Also, they can't force you to do a colonoscopy. But they are pushy, for good reasons.
Nope, the incidence rate is much higher in Canada:
formatting link
You misunderstand that. The 20% who had polyps snipped now have a greatly reduced chance of ever developing colon cancer. Because it was caught at a very early stage where you don't even know whether they would become malignant. But as the saying goes, an ounce of prevention ...
The 338 cases are those who literally came in five minutes to twelve. Had they not been screened those people would most likely have died soon.
Polyp-snipping has a substantial longterm benefit. It can save you 20 or
30 years from now. Ask the wife of your breats cancer specialist friend, she should know.
Check the link above.
Well, ours comes in the mail for free and when not back within 14 days there will be a phone call. And another, and another ...
Same for numerous other cancers. If a woman doesn't show up for the Ob/Gyn tests or the mammogram it's the same, they keep calling. Then there are regular blood sample tests for males and females. It's like at an airport. You sign in, pick a number, a monitor shows when it's your turn and to which stall to go, you stretch out your arm, and it'll be done. At home you can go online and see the results trickle in as they come back from the various labs. At the end you receive a letter with all details summarized (but you can opt out and go paperless).
This will also tell you other valuable things, like what your cholesterol levels are, liver values, and so on. Kind of important to know, yet most people in countries with socialized medicine don't get that screened. They are tested for this only after an event. Which is sometimes too late.
Overpriced, yes, absolutely. But that requires tackling tort law. What is being done in Obamacare will not make anything less expensive, on the contrary. Since it adds a layer of bureaucracy it will make everything go up in cost.
You are also right about the 70%. But that is not going to change much, despite all the hype about it. Because the penalties are ridiculously low and youngsters rather plunk down their money towards a new Dodge Challenger with mag wheels rather than seeing it being slurped up by health premiums. The vast majority of people without health care that I know have no health care because they chose to spend all their money on fun stuff. Boats, trailers, electronics, sports gear, cars, you name it.
There are also regular commercial mass screening events where you get the whole enchilada done in one visit for a fixed price of $199 or something like that. We also have that for cardiac screening. A huge tractor-trailer pulls up, after some whirring this that and the other things slide out and, whoopdidou, you have a doctor's office right in the parking lot of a church, supermarket or big company. Then they start piping people through there. Therefore, sorry to say, it is not an excuse if you don't have insurance. Those people should spend the $199 on themselves rather than a big-screen TV. And you do not need a $100/mo gym membership, I just got a full workout in the Pine Hill Preserve right here on my cheap mountain bike. Took it and myself to the limits. It's simply a matter of priorities.
Some of the studies I mentioned or linked bear that out but they are much smaller groups. It is nearly impossible to do this for larger groups because polyp removal has benefits on a time scale if decades. Until very recently we did not have any meaningful central databases, people change jobs and locations on average every 7 years. You can't really follow them. Here is a link to one of the studies:
formatting link
Mortality from colon cancer is much higher, 30-40 per 100k. More in other countries. That's pretty serious. I have seen first hand what that kind of cancer did to people very dear to me. So has Jim Thompson. All those people are now dead.
I prefer not to be among the 30-40 per 100k. And this is only the mortality. In addition, there are all those who had small or large parts of their intestines removed and often must wear port and bag for the rest of their lives. That puts a serious crimp in someone's lifestyle.
At 58 you should at least get a sigmoidoscopy. That in conjunction with regular fecal tests is supposedly about as good. If your insurance won't cover it you could obtain a quote from a hospital, it isn't super expensive. It's perfectly ok to haggle about the price. But get that quote in writing, else they might try to pull a fast one.
The U.K.s National Health Service is cheaper than Canada's or Germany's and it's probably not sensible to lump those three together as "socialised med icine". Keep in mind that "national insurance" approach which underlies all three was invented by Bismark to under-cut the appeal of his socialist pol itical rivals.
formatting link
suggests that ten years ago breast cancer survival rates were better in Can ada than the US.
formatting link
suggests that some of the statistics used by the anti-Obamacare campaigners were wrong.
know better, even European ones.
isease
reventative colon cancer screening. In countries that don't screen via colo noscopy it is, obviously, impossible to even detect which people have intes tinal polyps and how many. Therefore, obviously, there cannot be large scal e statistics about it in those countries.
the US to explain the lower rate of colon cancer there than in Germany and Canada, and - second - that this is the only explanation of the difference in rate.
ir polyps snipped, you haven't got to first base on substantiating the firs t claim.
this since I first heard the story. I'm a lot less confident about your cl aim that there's enough of it done in the US to explain the difference in t he rate of colon cancer. As you say, it's not a popular procedure.
fficient, works almost like a conveyor belt. Pretty modern technology and t hey let me witness my own scan via a patient-side monitor. I was surprised how fast the technician was speeding the probe through the intestine. But a doctor looks at that later and can slow down or zoom in when he/she suspe cts something.
but the New York data does suggests that the respondents aren't wildly dif ferent from the non-respondents.
the rates of colorectal cancer from state to state - more than between the US average and the German and Canadian average, and that this doesn't corre late with the percentage of the affected population screened.
ats me why. It's sad, I know a person whose cancer spread because of that a nd it does not look good right now.
ood reasons.
l
announced that HHC doctors performed more than 21,000 colonoscopies and re moved pre-cancerous polyps in about 20 percent of the cases at the city pub lic hospitals last year". They even found 338 hardcore dangerous ones durin g those. 20% is a lot. I believe one can safely assume that the remainder of the US population and also that in Canada isn't all that much different from New Yorkers. We eat too much bacon, they eat too much poutine, both pr etty bad for the health.
ics/?region=on
It may be now, but this web-site presents estimated rates for 2013 of 60/40 for males and females. Your earlier data for 2008
formatting link
gave 45.4/31.8 which is - average over the sexes - 38.6 and lower than the New York State figure (which is after polyp-snipping on half the population ).
million people. 20% of that is 4,000 sets of polyps snipped, about 40 per 100,000 (since only about half the population is FOCT screened ) which is about the same as the colorectal cancer rate. Only about 10% of these patients (338) had polyps that were actively cancerous, so the rest w ouldn't have gotten into the cancer statistics.
I don't see how. Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I'm saying.
developing colon cancer. Because it was caught at a very early stage where you don't even know whether they would become malignant. But as the saying goes, an ounce of prevention ...
they not been screened those people would most likely have died soon.
30 years from now. Ask the wife of your breast cancer specialist friend, she should know.
She ran the NSW cancer register for some years, before polyp-snipping becam e widely popular, so she may not know. I'm already perfectly convinced that polyp-snipping has a substantial long-term benefit, but if you had polyps now, there's every reason to suppose that you might develop new ones in a f ew years.
r than the 40.9 to 43.6 per 100,000 shown on the map, outstripping Canada a nd Germany even further, and again suggesting that US colorectal cancer is different breed of cat to the US/Canadian one - or rather a different range and distribution of of cancers to the range and distribution that the the Canadians and Germans have to cope with.
Which presents "estimated rates" estimated by cancer specialists with a ves ted interest in scaring patients into their consulting rooms.
a timely manner because they are nearly all asymptomatic. Once symptoms se t in it is usually too late.
to go out and buy a FOCT test kit from my local chemist, butprobably conver ted enough to talk to my GP about it next Monday during my regular every-si x-months appointment.
ere will be a phone call. And another, and another ...
As there should be.
was after. I've now got a much clearer picture of what the US does in this area, and it's good. Your health system is still grossly over-priced for wh at it does, and only does it for the fully insured 70%, but at least it see ms to get colorectal cancer screening as close to right as is humanly pract ical.
yn tests or the mammogram it's the same, they keep calling. Then there are regular blood sample tests for males and females. It's like at an airport. You sign in, pick a number, a monitor shows when it's your turn and to whic h stall to go, you stretch out your arm, and it'll be done. At home you can go online and see the results trickle in as they come back from the variou s labs. At the end you receive a letter with all details summarized (but yo u can opt out and go paperless).
l levels are, liver values, and so on. Kind of important to know, yet most people in countries with socialized medicine don't get that screened. The y are tested for this only after an event. Which is sometimes too late.
My cholesterol level was first screened by my GP in the UK around 1990 - I can remember the date fairly exactly, because it immediately preceded a her niated intervertebral disk.
My wife got routine mammograms and Pap tests there as well. UK's socialised medicine was getting that right more than twenty years ago. They are more picky about less cost-effective mass screenings.
being done in Obamacare will not make anything less expensive, on the cont rary. Since it adds a layer of bureaucracy it will make everything go up in cost.
Obamacare isn't going to impose any bureaucracy that you haven't got in Ger many, where health care costs per head are about two-thirds of the US level . That and the Dutch system run via a number of private health insurance fi rms which operate under close government supervision, which is presumably w here Obamacare would eventually end up, if the Tea Party doesn't end up in power.
espite all the hype about it. Because the penalties are ridiculously low an d youngsters rather plunk down their money towards a new Dodge Challenger w ith mag wheels rather than seeing it being slurped up by health premiums. T he vast majority of people without health care that I know have no health c are because they chose to spend all their money on fun stuff. Boats, traile rs, electronics, sports gear, cars, you name it.
They'd opt out of paying for defense and law and order if they could. A big part of health care is preventing communicable diseases turning into epide mics, and there's strong argument for making health insurance compulsory (a s it is everywhere else).
whole enchilada done in one visit for a fixed price of $199 or something l ike that. We also have that for cardiac screening. A huge tractor-trailer p ulls up, after some whirring this that and the other things slide out and, whoopdidou, you have a doctor's office right in the parking lot of a church , supermarket or big company. Then they start piping people through there. Therefore, sorry to say, it is not an excuse if you don't have insurance. T hose people should spend the $199 on themselves rather than a big-screen TV . And you do not need a $100/mo gym membership, I just got a full workout i n the Pine Hill Preserve right here on my cheap mountain bike. Took it and myself to the limits. It's simply a matter of priorities.
When I was a kid, the mass X-ray vans used to come around and check everybo dy out for TB - which was epidemic back then. If you had it you got shunted into the sanatorium where you wouldn't infect anybody else. Back then stre ptomycin cured it in about a year or so, if it didn't kill you first.
Betty MacDonald's once-famous book "The Plague and I" is about her time in a US sanatorium in 1937-38.
Commercial health testing services are available here and in the Netherland s. The advertising is built on making you unreasonably nervous, and the tes ts offered aren't exactly cost-effective.
The UK and Canada clearly have socialized health systems. Germany does only in part, there are two tiers. You get better treatment and wider options in the private one. I've lived there long enough to personally know the difference.
Quote from your link above "the age-standardised figures are 24 deaths per 100,000 Britons, and 19 per 100,000 Americans".
That is a rather substantial difference, isn't it?
[...]
As I said before, there is a difference in behavior between people and much of this depends on heritage and profession. For example, where I grew up, it was mostly farmers. Tough guys who would never go to a doctor unless they were unconscious and somebody called an ambulance. No ten horses would get them into a CT machine for screening, regardless of whether it's free or not. What counts are the country-wide averages and that's where there is a stark difference between the (former) US system and socialized medicine.
You need to look at the whole country.
No. The 338 were hardcore "Oh s..t!" events, where they found cancers that were just about ready to go off. That's not what I meant with polyp removal, although these patients will sure be glad that in the US we have such intense screening. Because otherwise they'd likely have died within a year.
Polyps are very early stages. They may never go off. But around 50% of them do, years or decades down the road. This is why early detection and removal are important, yet it is not done in many countries with socialized health care. Again, talk to a cancer specialist that knows about intestinal cancer.
Not necessarily. But even in people where that is true, not screening them would mean they and their doctors would never know about polyps.
Normally, people that had an "eventful" screeing will be monitored more closely and may be called in for more colon tests down the road than people with an uneventful screening. And that's the key: Prevention at an early stage. It simply does not happen in many countries with socialized health systems.
No, you are making an accusation without any proof whatsoever. This stuff is thoroughly reviewed. Because of my job I had to follow many such studies in the cardiac field. They are very meticulous and honest. There is no reason to believe that this is different in cancer research.
So why is it not done in Australia or other countries?
formatting link
Quote "The UK breast screening programme uses mammograms to screen for breast cancer in women every 3 years between the ages of 50 and 70".
Sorry, in the US this would be called seriously sub-par.
It already has. For example, in Germany the employer reports the income directly to the HMO and that sets your payment. Their tax authorities are never involved in this while here in the US they have hired scores of people for that. As a self-employed (which I was most of the time in Germany) you self-declare. Obamacare insists on formal agency verifications and AFAIK that's one of the bureauuratic procedures that got their web site unglued.
Here's hoping that the latter happens, else we'll go over the financial cliff ;-)
Well yeah, and Obamacare mandates free contraceptives. Ever thought what that will do to the morale of school kids? Now they can do it without fear of getting into a pregnancy "situation". It'll also increase the spread of communicable diseases.
Here they are very cost-effective because such commercial operations are streamlined for maximum patient through-put and optimized machine usage rates. No scare tactics. IMHO it is important to know about your risks of getting a particular disease, be it coronary issues or potential cancer. If it is caught early on, which it often is in those mass screenings, it can make all the difference for a family. They may avoid losing mom or dad.
What's happened is that medical specialties that have taken malpractice seriously and made changes to their practices and procedures have greatly reduced the cost of malpractice insurance.
It's too bad that it took malpractice suits and the resultant increase in premiums to cause them to take the issue seriously, but probably there was no other way.
Even the New England Journal of Medicine debunked the whole myth of excessive malpractice costs and the myth of meritless lawsuits resulting huge damage awards. The only real issue that they found was that the overhead costs caused the victims to receive only 54% of the awards with overhead and lawyers taking the rest.
The bottom line is that the whole myth of tort reform having an effect on medical costs has been fabricated by right wing Republicans whose real issue is that lawyers are more likely to give money to Democratic candidates than Republican candidates.
There is absolutely nothing to back up the claim that tort reform would reduce medical costs by 15%. That figure was created out of thin air by those whose handlers have told them to make up these stories.
"Do you keep hearing crazy voices in your head? Turn off Fox News."
s. You certainly haven't substantiated your polyp-snipping explanation - wh ich would require evidence that enough polyps had been removed to explain the difference, and even that wouldn't demonstrate that there weren't other factors in play.
t clearly contradicts clinical evidence.
ng.
e's out of town a lot regulating breast cancer trials, but we do seem to ca tch up with him and his wife (who is a retired expert on cancer statistics) from time to time.
s also lower in the US than countries with socialized medicine such as Cana da or the UK.
s "socialised medicine". Keep in mind that "national insurance" approach wh ich underlies all three was invented by Bismark to under-cut the appeal of his socialist political rivals.
ly in part, there are two tiers. You get better treatment and wider options in the private one. I've lived there long enough to personally know the di fference.
ners were wrong.
It might be. The point of the quote was that the American propaganda was se lective and incomplete. You need much more complete picture of the incidenc e of breast cancer in the US and the UK before you cam safely attribute the difference to a difference in the quality of health care. For a start, you need to known the difference in the rate of breast cancer, at what stage a breast cancer gets into the cancer statistics and so forth.
Remember that the US has a much lower proportion of deaths from prostate ca ncer than the UK because the US detects "prostate cancer" with the PSA test which picks up a lot of prostate cancers which are otherwise asymptomatic and never kill the patient.
the rates of colorectal cancer from state to state - more than between the US average and the German and Canadian average, and that this doesn't corr elate with the percentage of the affected population screened.
ch of this depends on heritage and profession. For example, where I grew up , it was mostly farmers. Tough guys who would never go to a doctor unless t hey were unconscious and somebody called an ambulance. No ten horses would get them into a CT machine for screening, regardless of whether it's free o r not. What counts are the country-wide averages and that's where there is a stark difference between the (former) US system and socialized medicine.
Blaming all the differences on the health care system leads to a lot of wro ng conclusions.
Beats me why. It's sad, I know a person whose cancer spread because of tha t and it does not look good right now. Also, they can't force you to do a c olonoscopy. But they are pushy, for good reasons.
tml
announced that HHC doctors performed more than 21,000 colonoscopies and re moved pre-cancerous polyps in about 20 percent of the cases at the city pub lic hospitals last year". They even found 338 hardcore dangerous ones durin g those. 20% is a lot. I believe one can safely assume that the remainder of the US population and also that in Canada isn't all that much different from New Yorkers. We eat too much bacon, they eat too much poutine, both pr etty bad for the health.
da as a whole.
istics/?region=on
60/40 for males and females. Your earlier data for 2008
the New York State figure (which is after polyp-snipping on half the popula tion).
No. That clearly lumps together different populations with different proble ms, and different reactions to health advice. One of the tricky things abou t cancer is that every cancer is different - cancer cells only get to be ca ncerous after their genotype has been extensively screwed up. The "six" cru cial changes required to make them malignant happen in different ways in di fferent cells, and are only a small part of a much larger collection of mut ations.
Generalising over "breat cancer" or "colorectal cancer" can be misleading s imply because the individual cancers can be very different, as can the indi vidula cancer cells within a cancer (which is why chemotherapy eventually s tops working in a lot of cases.
5 million people. 20% of that is 4,000 sets of polyps snipped, about 40 per 100,000 (since only about half the population is FOCT screened) which is a bout the same as the colorectal cancer rate. Only about 10% of these patien ts (338) had polyps that were actively cancerous, so the rest wouldn't have gotten into the cancer statistics.
that were just about ready to go off. That's not what I meant with polyp re moval, although these patients will sure be glad that in the US we have suc h intense screening. Because otherwise they'd likely have died within a yea r.
em do, years or decades down the road. This is why early detection and rem oval are important, yet it is not done in many countries with socialized he alth care. Again, talk to a cancer specialist that knows about intestinal c ancer.
I certainly know that, and knew it quite a while ago. There's nothing about socialised medicine that stops it doing FOCT tests or colon-snipping. As t he wikipedia article makes clear, it's a relatively new technique, and ther e is still some discussion about exactly how cost-effective it is, but I'm fairly confident it will be widely adopted - probably even in the UK where they are already good on mammograms and Paps smears.
er developing colon cancer. Because it was caught at a very early stage whe re you don't even know whether they would become malignant. But as the sayi ng goes, an ounce of prevention ...
Had they not been screened those people would most likely have died soon.
or 30 years from now. Ask the wife of your breast cancer specialist friend , she should know.
ecame widely popular, so she may not know. I'm already perfectly convinced that polyp-snipping has a substantial long-term benefit, but if you had pol yps now, there's every reason to suppose that you might develop new ones in a few years.
m would mean they and their doctors would never know about polyps.
Absolutely. But polyps are a fairly late stage precancerous state, and if y ou've got them you probably got a lot more cells that aren't quite so far d own the road. My guess is that polyps now are pretty reliable indicator or more polyps later.
losely and may be called in for more colon tests down the road than people with an uneventful screening. And that's the key: Prevention at an early st age. It simply does not happen in many countries with socialized health sys tems.
The UK is particularly cautious about spending money on mass screening, but if it looks cost effective, it does it - it certainly does mammograms and Pap smears and has for many years. And I got my cholestrol level checked th ere by my GP in 1990.
her than the 40.9 to 43.6 per 100,000 shown on the map, outstripping Canada and Germany even further, and again suggesting that US colorectal cancer i s different breed of cat to the US/Canadian one - or rather a different ran ge and distribution of of cancers to the range and distribution that the th e Canadians and Germans have to cope with.
You've presented two different sets of numbers for the Canadian male and fe male colorectal cancer rate. The 2013 "estimates" were 30% higher than the
2008 figures. Which would you believe?
2013 "estimates" are thoroughly reviewed? 2013 still has seven weeks to go!
They are very meticulous and honest. There is no reason to believe that thi s is different in cancer research.
Be your age. "Estimates" for 2013?
in a timely manner because they are nearly all asymptomatic. Once symptoms set in it is usually too late.
h to go out and buy a FOCT test kit from my local chemist, but probably co nverted enough to talk to my GP about it next Monday during my regular ever y-six-months appointment.
s there will be a phone call. And another, and another ...
The testing is certainly available in Australia, and the sigmoidoscopy. One of my remoter cousins got colon cancer and both my brothers promptly took themselves in to get checked. My younger brother was not enthusiastic about the procedure. By the time I got to hear about it, none of the relaitves s canned had come up positive, so I figured that it wasn't worth the trouble.
The wikipedia article suggests that it's a relatively new technique and tha t there's still discussion about it's cost effectiveness. US medicine is mo re influenced by malpractice suit phobia, which is one of the reasons it's half again more expensive per head than anybody else's even through it isn' t universal.
s after. I've now got a much clearer picture of what the US does in this ar ea, and it's good. Your health system is still grossly over-priced for what it does, and only does it for the fully insured 70%, but at least it seems to get colorectal cancer screening as close to right as is humanly practic al.
/Gyn tests or the mammogram it's the same, they keep calling. Then there ar e regular blood sample tests for males and females. It's like at an airport . You sign in, pick a number, a monitor shows when it's your turn and to wh ich stall to go, you stretch out your arm, and it'll be done. At home you c an go online and see the results trickle in as they come back from the vari ous labs. At the end you receive a letter with all details summarized (but you can opt out and go paperless).
rol levels are, liver values, and so on. Kind of important to know, yet mo st people in countries with socialized medicine don't get that screened. T hey are tested for this only after an event. Which is sometimes too late.
- I can remember the date fairly exactly, because it immediately preceded a herniated intervertebral disk.
lised medicine was getting that right more than twenty years ago. They are more picky about less cost-effective mass screenings.
east cancer in women every 3 years between the ages of 50 and 70".
The UK is a lot pickier about "cost-effective" than the US. In the UK young er women were advised to self-examine (which doesn't involve a cancer-encou raging dose of X-rays). Breast cancer is a lot less frequent in younger wom en, so there aren't that many cancers available to be detected, which does make early mammograms less cost-effective.
is being done in Obamacare will not make anything less expensive, on the c ontrary. Since it adds a layer of bureaucracy it will make everything go up in cost.
Germany, ...
irectly to the HMO and that sets your payment. Their tax authorities are ne ver involved in this while here in the US they have hired scores of people for that. As a self-employed (which I was most of the time in Ger many) you self-declare. Obamacare insists on formal agency verifications an d AFAIK that's one of the bureauuratic procedures that got their web site u nglued.
Teething troubles.
S level. That and the Dutch system run via a number of private health insur ance firms which operate under close government supervision, which is presu mably where Obamacare would eventually end up, if the Tea Party doesn't end up in power.
liff.
Since the Tea Party has already tried to drive the US economy over the fina ncial cliff, you do seem to be backing quite the wrong horse.
The Tea Party's financial ideas - as championed around here by James Arthur - are the financial equivalent of the flat earthism.
, despite all the hype about it. Because the penalties are ridiculously low and youngsters rather plunk down their money towards a new Dodge Challenge r with mag wheels rather than seeing it being slurped up by health premiums . The vast majority of people without health care that I know have no healt h care because they chose to spend all their money on fun stuff. Boats, tra ilers, electronics, sports gear, cars, you name it.
A big part of health care is preventing communicable diseases turning into epidemics, and there's strong argument for making health insurance compulso ry (as it is everywhere else).
that will do to the morale of school kids?
It will probably cheer them up no end. It won't help their morals, but some school age kids have been having sex since schools were invented, and if t hey are going to have sex, it's better that they use contraceptives - the g irls won't get pregnant, and there's less chance that the kids will share s exually transmitted diseases (STDs).
"Just say no" is a good slogan, but an ineffective policy.
t'll also increase the spread of communicable diseases.
Condoms would slow the spread of STDs. School girls have been getting pregn ant for a long time now. Making it happen less often would be a good thing.
the whole enchilada done in one visit for a fixed price of $199 or somethin g like that. We also have that for cardiac screening. A huge tractor-traile r pulls up, after some whirring this that and the other things slide out an d, whoopdidou, you have a doctor's office right in the parking lot of a chu rch, supermarket or big company. Then they start piping people through ther e. Therefore, sorry to say, it is not an excuse if you don't have insurance .
een TV. And you do not need a $100/mo gym membership, I just got a full wor kout in the Pine Hill Preserve right here on my cheap mountain bike. Took i t and myself to the limits. It's simply a matter of priorities.
rybody out for TB - which was epidemic back then. If you had it you got shu nted into the sanatorium where you wouldn't infect anybody else. Back then streptomycin cured it in about a year or so, if it didn't kill you first.
in a US sanatorium in 1937-38.
lands. The advertising is built on making you unreasonably nervous, and the tests offered aren't exactly cost-effective.
streamlined for maximum patient through-put and optimized machine usage rat es. No scare tactics. IMHO it is important to know about your risks of gett ing a particular disease, be it coronary issues or potential cancer. If it is caught early on, which it often is in those mass screenings, it can make all the difference for a family. They may avoid losing mom or dad.
The commercial operations are optimised to suck in the maximum number of cu stomers. The local news services exploit them from time to time in new heal th technology stories, and their reports suggest definite - if subtle - sca re tactics, and a serious shortfall on cost-effectiveness.
Wearing a port and bag isn't that bad. I save money on toilet paper and don 't waste much time in a restroom, but showers take a little longer. But now that I'm on the high risk list, I get a colonoscopy every 3 years, and rec ently they found 3 polyps which were benign. But the whole thing was my fau lt since I ignored symptoms of blood streaks in the stools and waited too l ong to see the doctor.
You are confused about what I was saying. I was talking about why a plan would not be grandfathered in. I agree that some of the ACA requirements are imposed on a grandfathered plan. That doesn't mean a plan must be canceled. It means the plan must be modified to conform.
Your current plan is *not* grandfathered if it made "significant" changes since the ACA was signed. In other words, the plan you had in
2010 was grandfathered in. If you have a different plan now it is *not* grandfathered in.
From the article you cited...
"Most health insurance plans that existed on March 23, 2010 are eligible for grandfathered status"
This didn't clarify anything. It is not even a sentence.
What the hell are you talking about? You must have one heck of an expensive insurance plan if it covers people in Africa that aren't even paying premiums.
Your example is a non-sequitur.
Oh, ok. I'm not a family of four, so my costs are very different. I've never been a family of four, so I don't have any reference points to compare.
say yes, ponder this. Lets just take 200 lives that spent $5,000,000 in hea lthcare. Save that $1,000,000,000 and spend it wisely in Africa to supply p roper nutrition. I bet 500,000 lives could be saved vs a measly 200 here. S o, what is a life worth?
Any rational discussion of medical insurance has to come back to what socie ty is prepared to pay for extra years of life. This is a roundabout way of getting at a valuation.
e in Africa that aren't even paying premiums.
Which rather misses the point.
Your reaction wasn't particularly insightful - you clearly didn't follow wh at was being said, but that doesn't mean that what was being said didn't ma ke sense.
That's not propaganda and the numbers are what they are.
The methods in the medical world are fairly similar. I've seen it in cardiology where we had trials and studies in all sorts of countries.
There isn't much else that can cause such large differences. It is a well known fact that cancer treatment success hinges largely on timely detection. That can only work with screening and such screeing is clearly better in the US.
Review the link again. For the whole US it is 34.1/25, for all of Canada it is 45.4/31.8. Now how can this huge difference between two immediately adjacent countries with similar habits possibly be explained by anything other that preventantive health care?
You can't discuss the numbers away. They send a very clear message, the message that early detection efforts pay off.
[...]
But they mostly don't.
New? Colonoscopies and mammograms have been around for decades.
It doesn't matter. Even if someone is prone to develop more polyps down the road the US doctor now knows that the person had polyps and can make sure that this person comes in for follow-ups more often than folks where no polyps were found. The UK, CA or AUS doctor does not know any of this because no colonoscopy had been performed.
According to your link they do mammograms not before age 50 and then only every three years. As I said, that is considered way subpar in the US. _This_ is what good health care looks like:
formatting link
Starts at age 40 and every 1-2 years. Most women I know where breast cancer was detected that way were between 40-50. In the UK most of them they would likely be dead now.
I don't know if this all still stands but Obamacare seems to be rolling cancer screening back, big time:
formatting link
Now it's bureaucrats who make such decisions and not doctors, and that is flat wrong. Luckily for me and my family we haven't (yet) been dumped into that morass and can keep our old pre-Obama plan for now.
Normally the most recent.
So you think in those last seven week a miracle happens and nobody gets sick? I believe the Canadian Cancer Society who published this knows a thing or two about this.
I believe the Canadian Cancer Society who published this knows a thing or two about this.
Yes, there is the tort law problem. But that does not apply to cancer screening because that goes along general guidelines. Malpractice cannot be claimed unless there were clear signs that a doctor or hospital negligently ignored.
Yeah, in real life that's called triage.
So why is it that the majority of women with breast cancer that I know got it at an age much younger than 50, where countries with socialized health do not screen? Those were also the more aggressive kinds of cancer.
If they can't even get as much as a web site together, who in their right mind would trust them with the administration of this whole monster? I sure don't. Most of our friends don't anymore either.
Obama did that. In 2006 he voted against (!) a debt ceiling raise, in
2009 he said racking up more debt is irresponsible and he is against doing that. 2013, after having racked up the highest debt of any president ever in history, he told the house he will not negotiate about any of that and it's his way or the highway.
No, they are sound financial ideas.
Exactly, and now they think it'll be ok. Pathetic.
[...]
It does work very well in our church community. Our kids don't need a nanny state.
It will spread nasty diseases. Because they can pop a bill and the boys can just have at it. You honestly think they'd use condoms anymore?
Propaganda. Please back that up with a link about a study.
I'm talking about a financial "burden" 2. Anyone paying a insurance premium is part of society. 3. If the insurance company pays out ,000,000 is comes from the part of society that pays the premiums to the insurance company.
If the insurance company has to pay even more than ,000,000, it is a "burden on society"
It refers back to removing the cap and how much is one life worth. If a life is worth more than $5,000,000, you get way better value if you spend it on 500,000 lives rather than on 200. However I see you don't want to look at it from that perspective. That's fine, no problem.
If you are looking at a single male, over 50 plan, They start at $300 and run up to $600 in my area. It may seem high, but you are covered for pregnancy, childhood prevention care, mamograms, gynological care and I don't know how they compare to what you have in the private market. Mikek
I guess it depends on what you do. Some folks told me it really changed their lifestyle. For example, I can't imaging that one could still do the wild mountain bike rides I did a couple times this week. Mostly in order to lose some weight but without having to endure boring time on a stationary bike.
I guess we all have a tendency to not go to the doc when we really should.
Actually, he didn't say that he screwed that up. What he said was that he was "sorry" if anyone believed him when he told them that they could keep their insurance. *CLEARLY* Obamacare was *designed* to do exactly what it did.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.