27 replies to this topic

[Agent_007]

No, that's why healthcare shouldn't be run by the government!

true that!

[curiousity]

No, that's why healthcare shouldn't be run by the government!

Yep, right now it's just a recommendation.

But under a government run healthcare, it would become policy, no doubt about that.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Yep, right now it's just a recommendation.

But under a government run healthcare, it would become policy, no doubt about that.

Yep, and eventually it would become corrupted so only insiders or those well-connected would be given the health care rations.

There is no worse idea than government-run health care.

[bordercolliefan]

Yep, right now it's just a recommendation.

But under a government run healthcare, it would become policy, no doubt about that.

Are you kidding? You can bet private insurers will drop mammograms faster than you can turn around, using this study as the excuse.

Remember, they have their profits to think about... (unlike a government system).

[Chad Vander Veen]

Are you kidding? You can bet private insurers will drop mammograms faster than you can turn around, using this study as the excuse.

Remember, they have their profits to think about... (unlike a government system) which can just spend and spend and spend from their magic never-ending money pile!

FTFY

[ducky]

It doesn't say "no screening," it says "no extra charge for screening." So the cost of those tests would be included in the cost of the insurance, rather than passed along only to the people getting the tests & shots. Any intepretation beyond that is conspiracy theory.

Right, out of one side of government's mouth it says no extra charge for screening. Out of the other side of government's mouth its agency that advises preventive health care practices is saying screenings that are currently the norm should be taken away from women for ten years and then only every other year after that.

If health insurance companies currently follow these types of government agency recommendations because they are considered "the gold standard," then I assume a government-run health care program would do the same.

[bordercolliefan]

But with private insurance you can go and choose a different private insurance that will cover what you want.....competition. I wish we could buy health insurance like we can auto or home insurance.

Some news for you: you are free, at any time, to go buy your own insurance on the individual market, from dozens or hundreds of competitors!! Just start looking on the internet, you will be surprised how many companies there are!

Oh, wait. That's right, people don't do that, because on the individual health insurance market (the MOST competitive part of our whole broken system), insurers have decided not to insure anyone with pre-existing conditions and to charge insanely high premiums. Wow, glad competition is working out so well there!

We need to come to the realization that free competition does not work in the individual market, because insurance companies just drop all the sick people... leaving our society with one very big, very expensive problem since we (taxpayers) provide insurance for all the private system's rejects.

[Bill Z]

Are you kidding? You can bet private insurers will drop mammograms faster than you can turn around, using this study as the excuse.

Remember, they have their profits to think about... (unlike a government system).

Yes, and if early detection can save them big bucks down the road, then it would behoove them to keep the previous recommendations going.

[ducky]

Sebelius is saying women 40 and over should continue getting yearly mammograms. She says, The task force does "not set federal policy and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government."

http://news.yahoo.co...ammogram_advice

I wonder what private insurers are going to do? Here's where I got that gold standard quote.

"The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), first convened by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1984, and since 1998 sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), is the leading independent panel of private-sector experts in prevention and primary care. The USPSTF conducts rigorous, impartial assessments of the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of a broad range of clinical preventive services, including screening, counseling, and preventive medications. Its recommendations are considered the "gold standard" for clinical preventive services."

[bordercolliefan]

Yes, and if early detection can save them big bucks down the road, then it would behoove them to keep the previous recommendations going.

Well, I wonder if this exposes a dirty little secret in health economics.

Often we hear, "Get people to stop smoking because that saves us a lot of healthcare dollars!" But common sense tells us that if someone dies at age 60 of lung cancer, their lifetime health care costs will be less than if they had lived until 90, gradually incurring the accumulated health problems that come with age.

Same with this. If someone gets a mammo and begins years of treatment for breast cancer (like Elizabeth Edwards), that probably costs more than someone who didn't get the mammo, their cancer was advanced by the time it was discovered, and they died within 6 months.

I don't think preventive care can be justified on the basis of cost. I think it's more about saving lives from potentially treatable conditions.

[ducky]

Well, I wonder if this exposes a dirty little secret in health economics.

Often we hear, "Get people to stop smoking because that saves us a lot of healthcare dollars!" But common sense tells us that if someone dies at age 60 of lung cancer, their lifetime health care costs will be less than if they had lived until 90, gradually incurring the accumulated health problems that come with age.

Same with this. If someone gets a mammo and begins years of treatment for breast cancer (like Elizabeth Edwards), that probably costs more than someone who didn't get the mammo, their cancer was advanced by the time it was discovered, and they died within 6 months.

I don't think preventive care can be justified on the basis of cost. I think it's more about saving lives from potentially treatable conditions.

I think you are right, especially your last two sentences.

I still think if people quit smoking it reduces overall health costs because smoking leads to so many other health problems besides lung cancer. Same with obesity, although I don't think the BMI chart is always accurate. Obesity leads to so many problems like heart conditions and diabetes. The difference is these two things are within the individual's control to battle. Cancer isn't.

It's just confusing when you get conflicting statements from authorities.

"Insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies — because there’s no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse," Obama said. "That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives."

[ducky]

Now the recommendations on pap smears have changed, too.

http://www.msnbc.msn...-womens_health/

What's next week's change going to be? Prenatal care shouldn't start until the third trimester?