Mammograms increase breast cancer risk due to the cumulative radiation. Women should be made aware of the very safe and, in fact, more accurate screening methods of thermography and/or MRI. Mammograms are big business and no one wants to admit this - they are advertised and promoted with free "giveaways" to entice women to have them. The advice to have mammograms later and less often is good advice, but better advice would be to utilize the other options.
There is a very good reason for the politicians who are pushing for women to wait longer for Mammograms, the goal is to reduce the number of mammograms.
It is because mammograms detect malignant growths in "boobs" and the BOOBS in DC are afraid they will be discovered for the malignant growths that they have become, feeding on the life's blood of the American people.
If you care to educate yourself, you could go to the websites of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the National Women's Health Network or Breast Cancer Action. They are all strong advocates for women's health and they all agree with these findings.
And you don't think that private insurance companies aren't rationing care and denying coverage right now? This panel didn't say anything about not covering the procedure. If anyone stops coverage, it will be the insurance cos.
Since Medicare Part A (which covers nothing other than hospital stays) was what I was enrolled in, I was faced with the choice of enrolling in Part B, which I had to pay for, or having no insurance to cover my copays. TRICARE was revoked even though I am a veteran, because when a veteran, any veteran is enrolled into any part of Medicare they lose their veterans promised health care coverage, as it is replaced by Medicare.
For the next 36 months, Medicare charged me 90.00 a month for coverage, but since the law places Medicare at the end of the line of payers, Aetna carried the ball and I paid Medicare 90.00 a month only to have them deny every charge. Like Obama-care, there is no "Opt-out" of the Medicare trap.
As for TRICARE and VA, when I retired I was 40% disabled but it took them a year to figure that out and get a disability letter done.
I was informed that I had to register with the local VA clinic, which required that I meet with a VA doctor.
The Doctor I was assigned is Pakistani and barely speaks English. It took me 18 months to get an appointment for my initial consult, and I was not allowed to get any VA treatments until the consult was complete. The first thing my Pakistani doctor said to me was "I'm tired of all of you people faking your injuries to get disability." This was before she even began the exam.
Yet, my retirement physical of 18 months earlier, had already confirmed my disabilities.
NOW....Why should I believe that any new healthcare bill will be any different than the current debacle?
Based on my experience, I have begun informing High School aged people in my area about the poor quality of service I received and cautioning them against military service.
First of all, the government doesn't have to RUN healthcare. We can fund it through the government and get rid of the greedy, inefficient middleman.
The military is the government. The police and fire are the government. You for privatizing those? Sorry, we're not going to respond to your emergency call. Your bad neighborhood is a pre-existing condition.
You may have mentioned the only things the government does that are constitional, providng for the common defense. I'm not sure how insurance companies are "middlemen". Wouldn't eliminating insurance companies leave only providers and patients? How would that work?
You must have skipped the part of the Constitution (right after defense) of promoting the general welfare.
True health care reform could work in a number of ways, as it does around the world. Some countries still have insurance companies, but they can't be for profit. Or the govt. sets all the prices. A few have the govt actually run the system. Some have the govt pay for it, but all hospitals are still privately run.
Health care for profit makes no more sense than firefighting for profit.
No no one skipped it. But apparently that phrase has now been interpreted to mean pretty much any and everything now hasnt it? Dont harken back to the Constitution as if it somehow supports your claim to govt controlled and funded through taxation because it does not.
If you believe it does not make sense for those in healthcare to make "profit' it only stands to reason that there is no area of endeavor that should make profit either, its evil Entertainment and Lawyering comes to mind
Wow, I didn't realize I was arguing with John Jay. Quite an honor. First, of all, I didn't bring up the Constitution, I just pointed out that defense isn't the only power given the government.
As for your poorly reasoned second point, many people go through their whole lives without needing a lawyer. Very few make it far without medical care. Plus, an individual's health has a far greater impact on the health of others than does his legal status.
And I didnt realize I was arguing with Barney Frank. You never commit yourself to any postion you cant change later right?
In fact , I would argue that those that can render the services of a lawyer make the system work for them and not the other way around. Novel concept right? Too bad OJ didnt figure out enough was enough right? Being in jail the rest of one's life while healthy I would say has far far greater impact than being sick and getting free county healthcare.
"Promote" the general welfare, does not mean PROVIDE it. But, let's not stop there. Perhaps we should "provide" errr.. I mean promote mandatory car insurance, life insurance (all non-profit of course). Let's also buy everyone a new car while we're at it. In fact, if I can't afford one, you should give me yours if you have more than one. Car companies should be non-profit too. Let's just go ahead and remove all incentives and competition, I'm sure that will improve products and services..
Promote the general welfare means the government can act for far more than simply defense, as you originally stated.
The rest of the industrialized world has concluded that health should be viewed as a public service, like police, fire etc. Health for profit is unworkable because covering the sick, the old and the poor will never make sense from a market standpoint. They will ALWAYS cost more than they put in. I just don't buy your answer to that, which appears to be "tough shit."
The rest of the "industrialized" World are not beholden to the US Constitution. Again, promote does not mean provide. I can provide for my own coverage for sickness and old age. Keep the government out of my health care--I don't want their help!!! As far as the poor are concerned, don't we already have Medicaid for them? The military is "provided" (vice "promoted") under the Constitution. Words mean things under the law otherwise they would have used "provide" in all cases. They didn't!
If you are trying to argue that all govt aid programs, including subsidies for businesses and tax credits for homeowners and the GI Bill of Rights are unconstiutional, go for it. Don't think you'll get too far.
As for you, I assume you will be declining your Medicare. By the way, imagine what shape seniors would be in today if Medicare hadn't passed. If they were in the marketplace, trying to buy coverage with no job and, in most cases, pre-existing conditions. Not pretty.
I didn't argue for that at all. I said that "promote" is not a mandate to "provide" entitlements under the Constitution. I also said I could provide for my own needs with the money the government takes from me. I am not counting on Medicare doing anything for me since it may not be there when I need it.
Business tax credits and the GI bill are not government aid. The former is money the company already made that the government is simply not taking. The latter is an employment benefit.
Your distinction between promoting and providing is moot. If the government determines that promoting the general welfare involves providing benefits, it is well within its rights.
I'm curious. Have you or anyone under your coverage had a major medical condition, the kind that involves over $100,000 costs. If you were facing bankruptcy, even with coverage, would you have the same attitude? Because that's the reality for many.
Government is always constrained by the Constitution. It does not determine anything . Constitutional questions are determined by the Supreme Court. The government has no 'rights'. The people delegate power to the government have the rights or have you forgotten?
If you lived in reality you would know that many of these bills are never paid. Medicine is provided at loss in this country every day.
Individual rights are protected under the Constitution. There are no "group" rights and certainly not any "government rights", especially if their actions infringe upon individual liberty or overstep into areas under the purview of the States. My feelings are not material in the debate nor do they change the law.
I'm a retired veteran; I have coverage from Aetna, the VA, and Medicare. I was diagnosed with Leukemia when I was 40, Aetna paid for all of my care, VA claimed that I had to go to a civilian cancer care center because they didn't have the proper facilities to treat me. So I went to the University of Louisville James Graham Brown Cancer center, in Louisville KY. The care was first rate, the government payment was far from it.
Aetna paid all costs, except the co-pays, TRICARE paid a small percentage, and I paid the rest out of pocket.
Then TRICARE billed their portion to AETNA, so the government paid nothing.
On the advice of a hospital Social Worker I signed up for Social Security Disability (SSD). I was on SSD for 26 months. At my 25th month of SSD, Medicare informed me that because I had been on SSD for more than 24 months that the law required I go on Medicare. This was after my cancer was cured.
How about the GREEDY and INEFFICIENT government ? Getting bigger and bigger by leaps and bounds. Does that worry you? Of course not you embrace statism and would give up all your freedoms for a loaf of bread and a cup of tea .
Military and police are extensions of executive power of the state. And of course there was a time when we did NOT have a professional army. Currently such a concept would hinder our superpower status otherwise a purely well armed militia could be used.
Mammograms (using X-rays) aren't healthy and there is no solid evidence that they save lives. According to Dr Mercola, thermography or thermal imaging is a much safer option. I wonder how many women have actually developed breast cancer because of routine mammograms...
Thermography is even more useless and has never been advocated by any group for use as screening. I wonder how many people will get cancer because of airport screening?
Government conclusions under Obummer: Total Lies and misdirection. The government "guidelines" are a clear example of what we have to look forward to under a government controlled system. This study smacks of false conclusions to meet a political end , saving money. Why not conclude : no body needs medical care until after the age of 50? you'll save alot more that way. To all the losers that put this farce in office: you deserve very much the type of healthcare dreamed up by Obummer.
First, of all, every memnber of this panel was appointed by Bush, NONE by Obama. Second, this recommendation was made, right or wrong, for medical reasons. Third, you don't think care isn't being rationed every day right now by insurance companies? And they are NOT doing it for medical reasons. Fourth, in the extremely unlikely event mammograms stop being covered, the cost is under $200. That's not nothing, but it's hardly catastrophic.
1)The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) solicits nominations for members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) through an open process announced in the Federal Register, an official Government publication for notices from Federal agencies and organizations. Anyone can nominate a candidate for the Task Force.
Not sure what your point was here. They are ultimately appointed through HHS. And none of these people have anything to do with Obama or the health reform bill.
My point was that you stated" First, of all, every memnber of this panel was appointed by Bush," that might have had something to do with it. The role of the AHRQ will become key in the currently considered "healthcare reform". Erroneous conclusions like that recently released will are just a taste of things to come. Imagine one agency whose conclusions are the guide to the clinical practice of erroneous guidelines.
And MY point wasn't that these were all bad guys (and girls) because they were appointed by Bush. It was that you began this whole thread by tying the conclusion of the panel to Obama. And NONE of these people were appointed by Obama.
OK, at first your misinformation was mildly amusing. Now, it's getting annoying. They are appointed through the HHS, which is part of the administration. All 16 were appointed by the Bush administration. Not by George personally. They couldn't pull him away from his video games.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) solicits nominations for members of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) through an open process announced in the Federal Register an official Government publication for notices from Federal agencies and organizations Anyone can nominate a candidate for the Task Force. Self-nominations are also accepted. Members of the Task Force are selected based on recognized expertise in prevention, evidence-based medicine, and primary care
OK, I will try to speak slowly and clearly, as if to a child. I wasn't speaking of the nomination process, which frankly, I don't care about. They are ultimately appointed by the administration.
The larger point on this inane debate is that you tried to tie these people to Obama, which clearly is absurd. They have nothing to do with Obama. The fact that you can't acknowledge your error tells us plenty about you, does it not?
Wow even plane english you have a hard time either understanding or accepting. It is pretty plain isn't it? "open process" means open process Not tied to Obama? like your stupid example Dr Susan Love? hahah get real
this is just plain incoherent. if the 16 people who wrote this finding were all appointed before obama was president, how is this obama's fault again? or are they all secret muslims born in kenya?
If you research its members more than half of them have given campaign contributions to the democrat party. Why dont you look that up online. Kind of like your Dr. Love expert. Wonder if that might have something to do with it? surprising isnt it? I dont believe it...........wow caught me off guard with that one.
I guess you think this is a big gotcha. These people, who know a hell of a lot more than either of us about the subject, think our health care system is flawed so they supported the candidate who would try to do something about it.
Again, since I can't use big pictures with duckies and horsies: They were appointed by the Bush administration. Before Obama was president. Whatever they did had nothing to do with Obama even if (dramatic organ music) they supported Obama for president.
I would think even an intoxicated , homeless, parollee would have more insight than you about pretty much anything.
Again moron the process is clearly defined at their website. The fact that most of them are left leaning bureaucrat lifers has little to do with their conclusions Im sure. In any case their erroneous conclusions are welcome, everyone can see where that is heading and more to come, I have no doubts.
I would think that if you were gainfully employed you might find better things to do with your time than bombard the internet with you useless partisan dung.
3)insurance companies are free market instruments; they can CHOOSE to cover whatever they want to, recalculation of premiums is done to adjust for more covered illnesses. The government supposedly should not fabricate data just to get out of paying for diseases.
4)The whole lie that the govt would somehow cover everybody for everything unravels , doesnt it?
I'm not here to agree or disagree with the findings but it is based on fact. Women of that age are far more likely to get false positives and than to be saved. Does that mean it shouldn't be covered? No, but they didn't just pull this out of their asses.
Government shouldn't fabricate data to get out of paying for diseases? They're not paying for it, except for Medicare. As you point out, if mammogram coverage is dropped, it will be by insurance companies, not the government.
The point of screening is to find cancer before it reaches an advanced stage. It is the norm to find more negatives than positives if you are looking for EARLY disease. I can only conclude the 'recommendation' believes we need to find disease later.
Under reform and "the govt cheese option' govt will assume the cost of screening mammography. If they have their way with such "scientific" data more women will be diagnosed later in their disease process.
Again, I don't know if I agree with the final conclusion. But this is a panel consisting largely of doctors, half of whom are women. Their explanation was based on medicine, that there are negative impacts associated with the test that should be considered. Something tells me that if the insurance industry had announced they were dropping coverage based on the same reasons, you wouldn't have a problem with it.
Again, insurance companies are PRIVATE entities. They are free to cover not cover what they want knowing that they may or may not lose business because of those policies. If they choose to cover a disease process they will have to risk adjust with a change in premium. The government on the other hand presumably covers NOT based on market forces instead would cover ALL disease processes (or continue to create "the uninsured") which was one of the ideals of reform.
I see. So since you think that it's a terrible idea not to cover mammograms and since you say the private insurers can stop covering them whenever their accountants tell them it's not proftable, I can only conclude you favor single-payer universal coverage. Congratulations! You have seen the light!
Certainly, you would have to favor the bill by leftys Nadler and Wasserman-Schultz that would mandate insurance companies coverage of routine mammograms.
No I dont favor single payor. First this is not affordable and rationing would have to be instituted either by frank denials or by fake conclusions reached by political psuedo-scientific govt organizations. Second, in a free country private industry has the option (for now) to cover what it wants. That is free enterprise, is that familiar to you? Free enterprise even if not able to cover all can cover efficiently,much more efficiently than govt.
Your mind appears muddled. You act like rationing is the bogeyman, then acknowledge that rationing is fine as long your coveted "private enterprise" is doing it. Free enterprise is clearly not more efficient than the govt. The US pays far, far more than countries with govt. funded/ controlled healthcare and we have worse outcomes. You may kneel before the altar of insurance companies. Rational people don't.
So you seem to acknowledge rationing can and will occur. Im glad you see the light. Everybody clearly already knows that private industry runs circles around any similar oriented govt entity. To argue the converse resembles a religious belief. We dont pay "far far more' and our outcomes are similar, more convenient and we get the most modern treatment. You may pray at the altar of the statists , but most Americans dont.
If you don't understand that the US pays grotesquely more for its health care than every industrialized nation, you are, in a word, delusional. Beyond the reach of rational thought. And if you think the best that this country, the most powerful on earth, can do is a society where people WITH health coverage line up at 4 a.m for a free clinic because they can't afford the out-of-pocket costs, that is beyond sad. You take a very dim view of this country if you think that's the best we can do.
What you call grotesquely is of course a gross exaggeration. Similar to the created 'crisis' in healthcare. There is no crisis and there is no "grosteque' overpayment. All that cost goes into new drug, devices and innovation.These investments into medical research have made the United States the leader in medical innovation, measured either in terms of revenue or the number of new drugs and devices introduced.
when you think of people lined up at 4 am you might want to think England.
Ah, it's the old canard about how bad things are in England. Just go over there and try to run for Parliament on a platform of switching to the American health care system. Good luck with that.
There is no crisis. Well, I suppose that ends the debate. If you can't see the problem, you are beyond help. If you're willing to see your fellow citizens die for lack of coverage and be financially ruined even when they do have coverage, well, I'm thankful I have a little more humanity than that.
For mt humanity? Do that every day. For health care? We're paying for it now. We're going to pay either way. We can pay dumb like we do now, lining the pockets of insurance companies and getting lousy results, or we can wise up like the rest of the industrialized world.
Ah, you can see some really good videos of Brits waiting in line to be seen in clinic at 4 am(utube) so Im not sure where you get your fantasy that we do that here in the USA. Frankly I wouldnt want to switch their system to ours they are used to socialism and a huge social programs. I think they would miss it.
No body is dying, another lie of the left. How many will 'die' as a result of the rationing and denial of treatments under your proposed govt option? Im glad Im smarter than that.
Nobody is dying from lack of insurance? You may actually be the only person on earth who truly believes that. By the way, the sun actually rises in the East.
As for people in the US doing that, it happened in Los Angeles in the parking lot of the Forum when a group dispensing free health care hit here on its national tour. Any many of the people on line said they HAD insurance but couldn't afford the out-of-pockets.
So those people die from lack of health insurance? or do they die because they are homeless, alcoholics , drug abusing, over weight, make poor personal choices. Will your health insurance cover that?
If I advertised a free manicure (esp in LA) , Im sure I'd have more than the parking lot of the forum full. Going on a "national tour' advertising free healthcare proves nothing except people dont want to pay anything for anything right?
Thanks for the festival of stereotypes. I thought Archie Bunker was dead. If you think it's only the homeless poor who are uninsured or underinsured, you are deluded. Again, many of the people on this line HAD insurance.
The group running this clinics started as a service in third-world countries. Which, in regards to health care, we now are.
I didnt realize reality was a stereotype. Did you take a survey while you were there ? Did you do demographics ? And again what did a free clinic prove? That we lack healthcare here in this country?
The USA is the leader in healthcare. More new drugs, new devices, new technology comes right from this country. I invite you to leave the country next time you get sick. I dont think anybody's feelings would be hurt.
Ah, the old love it or leave it argument. Well played, my backward friend.
Coming up with new technology doesn't make you the leader in health care when your people are dying for lack of health care. And if you think it's only "them" who are vulnerable, you live in a world that is long gone by.
Gee I scanned my post many times looking for the phrase "technology doesn't make a difference." Nope, not there. I said being the leader in technology doesn't make you the leader in health care.
So, let me get this straight. In England, as well as the dozens of other sane countries that have universal health care, they have to line up at 4 am and they are dying left and right while they wait for services. But if you were there, you wouldn't want to switch.
you have a problem keeping anything straight. Inroads into private healthcare options have thrived in England for exactly that reason. So I would conclude that they are solving their problem by privatizing it. Interesting isnt it?
Again, I say, try going to England or France or Japan or Germany or the dozens of other countries and run for office on a platform of switching to the American system. I'm not talking about limited private plans for optional procedures or nice hospital rooms. I'm talking the wonderful American plan where you pay your insurance company for decades and are still ruined if you have a major medical condition.
And I realize you get confused when your own muddled thinking is thrown back at you.
In 2006, the United States accounted for three quarters of the worlds biotechnology revenues and 82% of world R&D spending in biotechnology. I wonder where we would be if there were less grotesque money spent on development?
If all of you want everybody covered then you will have to pay for it. If you pay for it from tax payor money then presumably the govt cannot deny based on pre-existing conditions. Thats what you guys were crying about but of course you might come out with more bullshit studies about how we really dont need this and that in our healthcare.
You should read the assessment of this study from Susan Love in today's LA Times. She is the founder of a research foundation dedicated solely to the elimination of breast cancer. She doesn't endorse or reject the final conclusion of the panel, but she explains that there is a strong medical rationale for it. But of course I'm sure you know more about the subject than a medical professional who has spent her career focusing on the disease.
Yes of course I know more than this supposed health professional who would side on the side of such a bogus study with bogus conclusions. If you had half a brain you might be able to come to a conclusion by yourself and defend it. As I see it 250,0000 women under the age of 40 get breast cancer (a growing number)so that there is NO rationale of any kind NOT diagnose it. Unless you preach to underwrite healthcare but desire not to pay for it ('healthcare reform")
Love, Susan PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Self employed/Surgeon $500 09/21/2008 G OBAMA FOR AMERICA - Democrat Love, Susan DELHI, NY 13753 Not employed/Retired $250 09/20/2008 G OBAMA FOR AMERICA - Democrat Love, Susan 13753 Not employed/Retired $200 09/15/2008 G OBAMA FOR AMERICA - Democrat Love, Susan M. Self employed/Surgeon $300 03/02/2008 P HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT - Democrat Love, Susan M. 90272 Self employed/Surgeon $1,000 wonder what colors her opinion
Mammograms increase breast cancer risk due to the cumulative radiation. Women should be made aware of the very safe and, in fact, more accurate screening methods of thermography and/or MRI. Mammograms are big business and no one wants to admit this - they are advertised and promoted with free "giveaways" to entice women to have them. The advice to have mammograms later and less often is good advice, but better advice would be to utilize the other options.
wendyhum 1 year ago
There is a very good reason for the politicians who are pushing for women to wait longer for Mammograms, the goal is to reduce the number of mammograms.
It is because mammograms detect malignant growths in "boobs" and the BOOBS in DC are afraid they will be discovered for the malignant growths that they have become, feeding on the life's blood of the American people.
IMPLR1369007 2 years ago
mammograms dont worry bout em.cancer take some vitamin e.heart condition eat garlic. thats your new healthcare buddy get use to it.
boopster1000 2 years ago
If you care to educate yourself, you could go to the websites of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the National Women's Health Network or Breast Cancer Action. They are all strong advocates for women's health and they all agree with these findings.
And you don't think that private insurance companies aren't rationing care and denying coverage right now? This panel didn't say anything about not covering the procedure. If anyone stops coverage, it will be the insurance cos.
tishhead 2 years ago
Since Medicare Part A (which covers nothing other than hospital stays) was what I was enrolled in, I was faced with the choice of enrolling in Part B, which I had to pay for, or having no insurance to cover my copays. TRICARE was revoked even though I am a veteran, because when a veteran, any veteran is enrolled into any part of Medicare they lose their veterans promised health care coverage, as it is replaced by Medicare.
(Cont'd)
IMPLR1369007 2 years ago
For the next 36 months, Medicare charged me 90.00 a month for coverage, but since the law places Medicare at the end of the line of payers, Aetna carried the ball and I paid Medicare 90.00 a month only to have them deny every charge. Like Obama-care, there is no "Opt-out" of the Medicare trap.
As for TRICARE and VA, when I retired I was 40% disabled but it took them a year to figure that out and get a disability letter done.
(Cont'd)
IMPLR1369007 2 years ago
I was informed that I had to register with the local VA clinic, which required that I meet with a VA doctor.
The Doctor I was assigned is Pakistani and barely speaks English. It took me 18 months to get an appointment for my initial consult, and I was not allowed to get any VA treatments until the consult was complete. The first thing my Pakistani doctor said to me was "I'm tired of all of you people faking your injuries to get disability." This was before she even began the exam.
(Cont'd)
IMPLR1369007 2 years ago
Yet, my retirement physical of 18 months earlier, had already confirmed my disabilities.
NOW....Why should I believe that any new healthcare bill will be any different than the current debacle?
Based on my experience, I have begun informing High School aged people in my area about the poor quality of service I received and cautioning them against military service.
IMPLR1369007 2 years ago
The government can't run anything without messing it up
Mikevdog 2 years ago
First of all, the government doesn't have to RUN healthcare. We can fund it through the government and get rid of the greedy, inefficient middleman.
The military is the government. The police and fire are the government. You for privatizing those? Sorry, we're not going to respond to your emergency call. Your bad neighborhood is a pre-existing condition.
tishhead 2 years ago
You may have mentioned the only things the government does that are constitional, providng for the common defense. I'm not sure how insurance companies are "middlemen". Wouldn't eliminating insurance companies leave only providers and patients? How would that work?
Mikevdog 2 years ago
You must have skipped the part of the Constitution (right after defense) of promoting the general welfare.
True health care reform could work in a number of ways, as it does around the world. Some countries still have insurance companies, but they can't be for profit. Or the govt. sets all the prices. A few have the govt actually run the system. Some have the govt pay for it, but all hospitals are still privately run.
Health care for profit makes no more sense than firefighting for profit.
tishhead 2 years ago
No no one skipped it. But apparently that phrase has now been interpreted to mean pretty much any and everything now hasnt it? Dont harken back to the Constitution as if it somehow supports your claim to govt controlled and funded through taxation because it does not.
If you believe it does not make sense for those in healthcare to make "profit' it only stands to reason that there is no area of endeavor that should make profit either, its evil Entertainment and Lawyering comes to mind
shshshsht 2 years ago
Wow, I didn't realize I was arguing with John Jay. Quite an honor. First, of all, I didn't bring up the Constitution, I just pointed out that defense isn't the only power given the government.
As for your poorly reasoned second point, many people go through their whole lives without needing a lawyer. Very few make it far without medical care. Plus, an individual's health has a far greater impact on the health of others than does his legal status.
tishhead 2 years ago
And I didnt realize I was arguing with Barney Frank. You never commit yourself to any postion you cant change later right?
In fact , I would argue that those that can render the services of a lawyer make the system work for them and not the other way around. Novel concept right? Too bad OJ didnt figure out enough was enough right? Being in jail the rest of one's life while healthy I would say has far far greater impact than being sick and getting free county healthcare.
shshshsht 2 years ago
"Promote" the general welfare, does not mean PROVIDE it. But, let's not stop there. Perhaps we should "provide" errr.. I mean promote mandatory car insurance, life insurance (all non-profit of course). Let's also buy everyone a new car while we're at it. In fact, if I can't afford one, you should give me yours if you have more than one. Car companies should be non-profit too. Let's just go ahead and remove all incentives and competition, I'm sure that will improve products and services..
Mikevdog 2 years ago
Promote the general welfare means the government can act for far more than simply defense, as you originally stated.
The rest of the industrialized world has concluded that health should be viewed as a public service, like police, fire etc. Health for profit is unworkable because covering the sick, the old and the poor will never make sense from a market standpoint. They will ALWAYS cost more than they put in. I just don't buy your answer to that, which appears to be "tough shit."
tishhead 2 years ago
The rest of the "industrialized" World are not beholden to the US Constitution. Again, promote does not mean provide. I can provide for my own coverage for sickness and old age. Keep the government out of my health care--I don't want their help!!! As far as the poor are concerned, don't we already have Medicaid for them? The military is "provided" (vice "promoted") under the Constitution. Words mean things under the law otherwise they would have used "provide" in all cases. They didn't!
Mikevdog 2 years ago
If you are trying to argue that all govt aid programs, including subsidies for businesses and tax credits for homeowners and the GI Bill of Rights are unconstiutional, go for it. Don't think you'll get too far.
As for you, I assume you will be declining your Medicare. By the way, imagine what shape seniors would be in today if Medicare hadn't passed. If they were in the marketplace, trying to buy coverage with no job and, in most cases, pre-existing conditions. Not pretty.
tishhead 2 years ago
Actually, my bad (and your worse). Article 1, Sect. 8 actually uses the word provide, not promote, in relation to the general welfare of the country.
tishhead 2 years ago
I didn't argue for that at all. I said that "promote" is not a mandate to "provide" entitlements under the Constitution. I also said I could provide for my own needs with the money the government takes from me. I am not counting on Medicare doing anything for me since it may not be there when I need it.
Business tax credits and the GI bill are not government aid. The former is money the company already made that the government is simply not taking. The latter is an employment benefit.
Mikevdog 2 years ago
Your distinction between promoting and providing is moot. If the government determines that promoting the general welfare involves providing benefits, it is well within its rights.
I'm curious. Have you or anyone under your coverage had a major medical condition, the kind that involves over $100,000 costs. If you were facing bankruptcy, even with coverage, would you have the same attitude? Because that's the reality for many.
tishhead 2 years ago
Government is always constrained by the Constitution. It does not determine anything . Constitutional questions are determined by the Supreme Court. The government has no 'rights'. The people delegate power to the government have the rights or have you forgotten?
If you lived in reality you would know that many of these bills are never paid. Medicine is provided at loss in this country every day.
shshshsht 2 years ago
Individual rights are protected under the Constitution. There are no "group" rights and certainly not any "government rights", especially if their actions infringe upon individual liberty or overstep into areas under the purview of the States. My feelings are not material in the debate nor do they change the law.
Mikevdog 2 years ago
I'm a retired veteran; I have coverage from Aetna, the VA, and Medicare. I was diagnosed with Leukemia when I was 40, Aetna paid for all of my care, VA claimed that I had to go to a civilian cancer care center because they didn't have the proper facilities to treat me. So I went to the University of Louisville James Graham Brown Cancer center, in Louisville KY. The care was first rate, the government payment was far from it.
(Cont'd)
IMPLR1369007 2 years ago
Aetna paid all costs, except the co-pays, TRICARE paid a small percentage, and I paid the rest out of pocket.
Then TRICARE billed their portion to AETNA, so the government paid nothing.
On the advice of a hospital Social Worker I signed up for Social Security Disability (SSD). I was on SSD for 26 months. At my 25th month of SSD, Medicare informed me that because I had been on SSD for more than 24 months that the law required I go on Medicare. This was after my cancer was cured.
(Cont"d)
IMPLR1369007 2 years ago
How about the GREEDY and INEFFICIENT government ? Getting bigger and bigger by leaps and bounds. Does that worry you? Of course not you embrace statism and would give up all your freedoms for a loaf of bread and a cup of tea .
Military and police are extensions of executive power of the state. And of course there was a time when we did NOT have a professional army. Currently such a concept would hinder our superpower status otherwise a purely well armed militia could be used.
shshshsht 2 years ago
Mammograms (using X-rays) aren't healthy and there is no solid evidence that they save lives. According to Dr Mercola, thermography or thermal imaging is a much safer option. I wonder how many women have actually developed breast cancer because of routine mammograms...
behlec 2 years ago
Thermography is even more useless and has never been advocated by any group for use as screening. I wonder how many people will get cancer because of airport screening?
shshshsht 2 years ago
Government conclusions under Obummer: Total Lies and misdirection. The government "guidelines" are a clear example of what we have to look forward to under a government controlled system. This study smacks of false conclusions to meet a political end , saving money. Why not conclude : no body needs medical care until after the age of 50? you'll save alot more that way. To all the losers that put this farce in office: you deserve very much the type of healthcare dreamed up by Obummer.
shshshsht 2 years ago
First, of all, every memnber of this panel was appointed by Bush, NONE by Obama. Second, this recommendation was made, right or wrong, for medical reasons. Third, you don't think care isn't being rationed every day right now by insurance companies? And they are NOT doing it for medical reasons. Fourth, in the extremely unlikely event mammograms stop being covered, the cost is under $200. That's not nothing, but it's hardly catastrophic.
tishhead 2 years ago
1)The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) solicits nominations for members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) through an open process announced in the Federal Register, an official Government publication for notices from Federal agencies and organizations. Anyone can nominate a candidate for the Task Force.
shshshsht 2 years ago
Not sure what your point was here. They are ultimately appointed through HHS. And none of these people have anything to do with Obama or the health reform bill.
tishhead 2 years ago
My point was that you stated" First, of all, every memnber of this panel was appointed by Bush," that might have had something to do with it. The role of the AHRQ will become key in the currently considered "healthcare reform". Erroneous conclusions like that recently released will are just a taste of things to come. Imagine one agency whose conclusions are the guide to the clinical practice of erroneous guidelines.
shshshsht 2 years ago
And MY point wasn't that these were all bad guys (and girls) because they were appointed by Bush. It was that you began this whole thread by tying the conclusion of the panel to Obama. And NONE of these people were appointed by Obama.
tishhead 2 years ago
Read again they were not appointed by Bush. The guidelines are at its website if you bother to consult reality.
shshshsht 2 years ago
OK, at first your misinformation was mildly amusing. Now, it's getting annoying. They are appointed through the HHS, which is part of the administration. All 16 were appointed by the Bush administration. Not by George personally. They couldn't pull him away from his video games.
tishhead 2 years ago
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) solicits nominations for members of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) through an open process announced in the Federal Register an official Government publication for notices from Federal agencies and organizations Anyone can nominate a candidate for the Task Force. Self-nominations are also accepted. Members of the Task Force are selected based on recognized expertise in prevention, evidence-based medicine, and primary care
shshshsht 2 years ago
Maybe you should go to the website and read it.
shshshsht 2 years ago
OK, I will try to speak slowly and clearly, as if to a child. I wasn't speaking of the nomination process, which frankly, I don't care about. They are ultimately appointed by the administration.
The larger point on this inane debate is that you tried to tie these people to Obama, which clearly is absurd. They have nothing to do with Obama. The fact that you can't acknowledge your error tells us plenty about you, does it not?
tishhead 2 years ago
Wow even plane english you have a hard time either understanding or accepting. It is pretty plain isn't it? "open process" means open process Not tied to Obama? like your stupid example Dr Susan Love? hahah get real
shshshsht 2 years ago
this is just plain incoherent. if the 16 people who wrote this finding were all appointed before obama was president, how is this obama's fault again? or are they all secret muslims born in kenya?
tishhead 2 years ago
So now Bush didnt apppoint them as you claimed?
If you research its members more than half of them have given campaign contributions to the democrat party. Why dont you look that up online. Kind of like your Dr. Love expert. Wonder if that might have something to do with it? surprising isnt it? I dont believe it...........wow caught me off guard with that one.
shshshsht 2 years ago
I guess you think this is a big gotcha. These people, who know a hell of a lot more than either of us about the subject, think our health care system is flawed so they supported the candidate who would try to do something about it.
Again, since I can't use big pictures with duckies and horsies: They were appointed by the Bush administration. Before Obama was president. Whatever they did had nothing to do with Obama even if (dramatic organ music) they supported Obama for president.
Geez.
tishhead 2 years ago
I would think even an intoxicated , homeless, parollee would have more insight than you about pretty much anything.
Again moron the process is clearly defined at their website. The fact that most of them are left leaning bureaucrat lifers has little to do with their conclusions Im sure. In any case their erroneous conclusions are welcome, everyone can see where that is heading and more to come, I have no doubts.
shshshsht 2 years ago
I would think that being as unburdened by serious thought as you are, you would be more at peace. But you are just plain cranky.
tishhead 2 years ago
I would think that if you were gainfully employed you might find better things to do with your time than bombard the internet with you useless partisan dung.
shshshsht 2 years ago
Yeah, gee, I hate people who do that.
tishhead 2 years ago
Obama is in charge now. Let's see what he does.
Mikevdog 2 years ago
2) Their data goes against 40 years of data
3)insurance companies are free market instruments; they can CHOOSE to cover whatever they want to, recalculation of premiums is done to adjust for more covered illnesses. The government supposedly should not fabricate data just to get out of paying for diseases.
4)The whole lie that the govt would somehow cover everybody for everything unravels , doesnt it?
shshshsht 2 years ago
I'm not here to agree or disagree with the findings but it is based on fact. Women of that age are far more likely to get false positives and than to be saved. Does that mean it shouldn't be covered? No, but they didn't just pull this out of their asses.
Government shouldn't fabricate data to get out of paying for diseases? They're not paying for it, except for Medicare. As you point out, if mammogram coverage is dropped, it will be by insurance companies, not the government.
tishhead 2 years ago
The point of screening is to find cancer before it reaches an advanced stage. It is the norm to find more negatives than positives if you are looking for EARLY disease. I can only conclude the 'recommendation' believes we need to find disease later.
Under reform and "the govt cheese option' govt will assume the cost of screening mammography. If they have their way with such "scientific" data more women will be diagnosed later in their disease process.
shshshsht 2 years ago
Again, I don't know if I agree with the final conclusion. But this is a panel consisting largely of doctors, half of whom are women. Their explanation was based on medicine, that there are negative impacts associated with the test that should be considered. Something tells me that if the insurance industry had announced they were dropping coverage based on the same reasons, you wouldn't have a problem with it.
tishhead 2 years ago
Again, insurance companies are PRIVATE entities. They are free to cover not cover what they want knowing that they may or may not lose business because of those policies. If they choose to cover a disease process they will have to risk adjust with a change in premium. The government on the other hand presumably covers NOT based on market forces instead would cover ALL disease processes (or continue to create "the uninsured") which was one of the ideals of reform.
shshshsht 2 years ago
I see. So since you think that it's a terrible idea not to cover mammograms and since you say the private insurers can stop covering them whenever their accountants tell them it's not proftable, I can only conclude you favor single-payer universal coverage. Congratulations! You have seen the light!
Certainly, you would have to favor the bill by leftys Nadler and Wasserman-Schultz that would mandate insurance companies coverage of routine mammograms.
tishhead 2 years ago
No I dont favor single payor. First this is not affordable and rationing would have to be instituted either by frank denials or by fake conclusions reached by political psuedo-scientific govt organizations. Second, in a free country private industry has the option (for now) to cover what it wants. That is free enterprise, is that familiar to you? Free enterprise even if not able to cover all can cover efficiently,much more efficiently than govt.
shshshsht 2 years ago
Your mind appears muddled. You act like rationing is the bogeyman, then acknowledge that rationing is fine as long your coveted "private enterprise" is doing it. Free enterprise is clearly not more efficient than the govt. The US pays far, far more than countries with govt. funded/ controlled healthcare and we have worse outcomes. You may kneel before the altar of insurance companies. Rational people don't.
tishhead 2 years ago
So you seem to acknowledge rationing can and will occur. Im glad you see the light. Everybody clearly already knows that private industry runs circles around any similar oriented govt entity. To argue the converse resembles a religious belief. We dont pay "far far more' and our outcomes are similar, more convenient and we get the most modern treatment. You may pray at the altar of the statists , but most Americans dont.
shshshsht 2 years ago
If you don't understand that the US pays grotesquely more for its health care than every industrialized nation, you are, in a word, delusional. Beyond the reach of rational thought. And if you think the best that this country, the most powerful on earth, can do is a society where people WITH health coverage line up at 4 a.m for a free clinic because they can't afford the out-of-pocket costs, that is beyond sad. You take a very dim view of this country if you think that's the best we can do.
tishhead 2 years ago
What you call grotesquely is of course a gross exaggeration. Similar to the created 'crisis' in healthcare. There is no crisis and there is no "grosteque' overpayment. All that cost goes into new drug, devices and innovation.These investments into medical research have made the United States the leader in medical innovation, measured either in terms of revenue or the number of new drugs and devices introduced.
when you think of people lined up at 4 am you might want to think England.
shshshsht 2 years ago
Ah, it's the old canard about how bad things are in England. Just go over there and try to run for Parliament on a platform of switching to the American health care system. Good luck with that.
There is no crisis. Well, I suppose that ends the debate. If you can't see the problem, you are beyond help. If you're willing to see your fellow citizens die for lack of coverage and be financially ruined even when they do have coverage, well, I'm thankful I have a little more humanity than that.
tishhead 2 years ago
Good. Are you willing to pay for it?
Mikevdog 2 years ago
For mt humanity? Do that every day. For health care? We're paying for it now. We're going to pay either way. We can pay dumb like we do now, lining the pockets of insurance companies and getting lousy results, or we can wise up like the rest of the industrialized world.
tishhead 2 years ago
Ah, you can see some really good videos of Brits waiting in line to be seen in clinic at 4 am(utube) so Im not sure where you get your fantasy that we do that here in the USA. Frankly I wouldnt want to switch their system to ours they are used to socialism and a huge social programs. I think they would miss it.
No body is dying, another lie of the left. How many will 'die' as a result of the rationing and denial of treatments under your proposed govt option? Im glad Im smarter than that.
shshshsht 2 years ago
Nobody is dying from lack of insurance? You may actually be the only person on earth who truly believes that. By the way, the sun actually rises in the East.
As for people in the US doing that, it happened in Los Angeles in the parking lot of the Forum when a group dispensing free health care hit here on its national tour. Any many of the people on line said they HAD insurance but couldn't afford the out-of-pockets.
tishhead 2 years ago
So those people die from lack of health insurance? or do they die because they are homeless, alcoholics , drug abusing, over weight, make poor personal choices. Will your health insurance cover that?
If I advertised a free manicure (esp in LA) , Im sure I'd have more than the parking lot of the forum full. Going on a "national tour' advertising free healthcare proves nothing except people dont want to pay anything for anything right?
shshshsht 2 years ago
Thanks for the festival of stereotypes. I thought Archie Bunker was dead. If you think it's only the homeless poor who are uninsured or underinsured, you are deluded. Again, many of the people on this line HAD insurance.
The group running this clinics started as a service in third-world countries. Which, in regards to health care, we now are.
tishhead 2 years ago
I didnt realize reality was a stereotype. Did you take a survey while you were there ? Did you do demographics ? And again what did a free clinic prove? That we lack healthcare here in this country?
The USA is the leader in healthcare. More new drugs, new devices, new technology comes right from this country. I invite you to leave the country next time you get sick. I dont think anybody's feelings would be hurt.
shshshsht 2 years ago
Ah, the old love it or leave it argument. Well played, my backward friend.
Coming up with new technology doesn't make you the leader in health care when your people are dying for lack of health care. And if you think it's only "them" who are vulnerable, you live in a world that is long gone by.
tishhead 2 years ago
Hahah try repeating that 100 times
technology doesnt make a difference.....
techn..... doesnt ..... make a difference....
I dont think anybody buys that argument.
shshshsht 2 years ago
Gee I scanned my post many times looking for the phrase "technology doesn't make a difference." Nope, not there. I said being the leader in technology doesn't make you the leader in health care.
tishhead 2 years ago
and yet without advances in technology you cannot lead in healthcare. No new treatments , no new cures, no advancement period.
shshshsht 2 years ago
Medicaid
Mikevdog 2 years ago
So, let me get this straight. In England, as well as the dozens of other sane countries that have universal health care, they have to line up at 4 am and they are dying left and right while they wait for services. But if you were there, you wouldn't want to switch.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
tishhead 2 years ago
you have a problem keeping anything straight. Inroads into private healthcare options have thrived in England for exactly that reason. So I would conclude that they are solving their problem by privatizing it. Interesting isnt it?
shshshsht 2 years ago
Again, I say, try going to England or France or Japan or Germany or the dozens of other countries and run for office on a platform of switching to the American system. I'm not talking about limited private plans for optional procedures or nice hospital rooms. I'm talking the wonderful American plan where you pay your insurance company for decades and are still ruined if you have a major medical condition.
And I realize you get confused when your own muddled thinking is thrown back at you.
tishhead 2 years ago
In 2006, the United States accounted for three quarters of the worlds biotechnology revenues and 82% of world R&D spending in biotechnology. I wonder where we would be if there were less grotesque money spent on development?
shshshsht 2 years ago
If all of you want everybody covered then you will have to pay for it. If you pay for it from tax payor money then presumably the govt cannot deny based on pre-existing conditions. Thats what you guys were crying about but of course you might come out with more bullshit studies about how we really dont need this and that in our healthcare.
shshshsht 2 years ago
You should read the assessment of this study from Susan Love in today's LA Times. She is the founder of a research foundation dedicated solely to the elimination of breast cancer. She doesn't endorse or reject the final conclusion of the panel, but she explains that there is a strong medical rationale for it. But of course I'm sure you know more about the subject than a medical professional who has spent her career focusing on the disease.
tishhead 2 years ago
Yes of course I know more than this supposed health professional who would side on the side of such a bogus study with bogus conclusions. If you had half a brain you might be able to come to a conclusion by yourself and defend it. As I see it 250,0000 women under the age of 40 get breast cancer (a growing number)so that there is NO rationale of any kind NOT diagnose it. Unless you preach to underwrite healthcare but desire not to pay for it ('healthcare reform")
shshshsht 2 years ago
shshshsht 2 years ago
Some of Dr Love's recent campaign contributions. Interesting isnt it?
shshshsht 2 years ago
$200 here $200 there, pretty soon we're talking real money.
Mikevdog 2 years ago
My Aunt was 41yo and had Breast Cancer and Died.
Wake Uo America.
ryen1992 2 years ago
Well, this should give all American's FOR Healthcare reform a good idea about what happens when the gov't sticks it's nose where it doesn't belong!
pathu32 2 years ago
I've been debating this a lot with women lately. I keep telling them they need more breast exams and they keep telling me I'm not qualified.
BinkieMcFartnuggets 2 years ago