Healthcare town hall

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3111301
Is their any doubt that prostrate screening is a good thing? Why in the world does their need to be a study. They are dragging their feet because they don't have the resources to do it,
My wife who worked for a med mal specialist law firm and now works for a insurance company, one that insures hospitals against med mal claims and she wants to know what insurance company was dumb enough to refuse to cover a colonostophy, Her old boss would love to get that business.
Ask Katie Couric -she did a whole series on it after her husband died of colon cancer. There was real resistance to paying for colonoscopies just a few years ago. As for prostate cancer research - the medical literature is full of treatments and diagnostic tests that were eventually proved to be useless or not cost-effective after scientific testing. In fact, medicine has a specific term for it - evidence based medicine.
 

reefraff

Active Member

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3111919
Ask Katie Couric -she did a whole series on it after her husband died of colon cancer. There was real resistance to paying for colonoscopies just a few years ago. As for prostate cancer research - the medical literature is full of treatments and diagnostic tests that were eventually proved to be useless or not cost-effective after scientific testing. In fact, medicine has a specific term for it - evidence based medicine.
Oh, so they need to do a study to determine if the pre screening method that has led to a much greater survival rate in the US works? I figured the proven results were pretty good evidence.
"Prof Markham also announced a £1 million expansion of a trial designed to find out whether prostate cancer screening saves lives."
Isn't the answer to that question pretty obvious? Sounds to me like the politicians have some family members that need a job as a chair warmer for a government study

"Bowel cancer is the second biggest cancer killer after lung cancer, claiming the lives of 16,000 people a year. The disease is curable in almost every case if caught early enough.
Prof Markham said the only obstacle to starting the programme immediately was the shortage of NHS specialists.
"There's a possibility that a screening programme could very quickly overwhelm current clinical capacity and that would suggest a lack of foresight in the introduction," he said. The screening could cost at least £50 million a year."
Sounds to me like they are saying they don't have the staff to do procedures they believe will lead to the disease being cured in "Almost every case". Maybe my reading comprehension isn't what it used to be

That right there sums up most people's objection to government ran health care. As it stands now the government can require tests and procedures be covered. If you have the government running the show who is the watch dog? The one's who say it is OK for the Chairman of the Senate finance committee to get a special loan rate from a company that has a stake in laws and regulations created by the committee? No thank you.
 

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3111953
Oh, so they need to do a study to determine if the pre screening method that has led to a much greater survival rate in the US works? I figured the proven results were pretty good evidence.
"Prof Markham also announced a £1 million expansion of a trial designed to find out whether prostate cancer screening saves lives."
Isn't the answer to that question pretty obvious? Sounds to me like the politicians have some family members that need a job as a chair warmer for a government study

No, it isn't "pretty obvious". In any screening technology, there are always going to be false positives,in which the screening says there is disease where there isn't. Patients who screen falsely positive will then undergo further testing. That further testing is generally more invasive and dangerous. It takes a detailed scientific analysis to determine whether the good done by a screening is outweighed by the negatives of a false positive, and even of a false negative.
 

geridoc

Well-Known Member

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3111953
"Bowel cancer is the second biggest cancer killer after lung cancer, claiming the lives of 16,000 people a year. The disease is curable in almost every case if caught early enough.
Prof Markham said the only obstacle to starting the programme immediately was the shortage of NHS specialists.
"There's a possibility that a screening programme could very quickly overwhelm current clinical capacity and that would suggest a lack of foresight in the introduction," he said. The screening could cost at least £50 million a year."
Sounds to me like they are saying they don't have the staff to do procedures they believe will lead to the disease being cured in "Almost every case". Maybe my reading comprehension isn't what it used to be

That right there sums up most people's objection to government ran health care. As it stands now the government can require tests and procedures be covered. If you have the government running the show who is the watch dog? The one's who say it is OK for the Chairman of the Senate finance committee to get a special loan rate from a company that has a stake in laws and regulations created by the committee? No thank you.
There isn't sufficient staff in the US either - we insured people "benefit" from having such a large number of uninsureds who cannot afford regular colonoscopies. Maybe a better,more humane plan would be to insure everyone and increase staffing levels.
 

uneverno

Active Member
If the question is one of expense, is not the better solution prevention rather than cure?
If one looks at cancers specifically, one will find that the US leads developed nations in newly diagnosed cases on an annual basis as a percentage of population.
Why is that? --- Most of them have known causes.
An Oz. of prevention... No?
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3111953
"Bowel cancer is the second biggest cancer killer after lung cancer, claiming the lives of 16,000 people a year. The disease is curable in almost every case if caught early enough.
If caught early enough, they all are. The big trouble w/ most cancers is that the symptoms don't manifest themselves until it's metastasized. It becomes a serious problem at that point. (Just as an aside, breastcancer, not bowel, is #2 following lung.)
There's a possibility that a screening programme could very quickly overwhelm current clinical capacity and that would suggest a lack of foresight in the introduction," he said. The screening could cost at least £50 million a year.
oooooo - almost 350 million dollars based on current £-$ exchange rate and population difference.
Stop the 450 billion dollar national defense budget. We can no longer spend more than the rest of the world combined on munitions!
(The annual global "defense" budget is just shy of 1 trillion dollars, of which the US alone spends roughly half.)
Unfortunately though, we may have to keep a couple people alive long enough to burn that cordite.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3112703
No, it isn't "pretty obvious". In any screening technology, there are always going to be false positives,in which the screening says there is disease where there isn't. Patients who screen falsely positive will then undergo further testing. That further testing is generally more invasive and dangerous. It takes a detailed scientific analysis to determine whether the good done by a screening is outweighed by the negatives of a false positive, and even of a false negative.
Our survival rate is how many times better? It's obvius to most people I guess
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3112705
There isn't sufficient staff in the US either - we insured people "benefit" from having such a large number of uninsureds who cannot afford regular colonoscopies. Maybe a better,more humane plan would be to insure everyone and increase staffing levels.
We should insure everyone. First step is to vote the Democrats out of office so we can put an end to the trial lawyers gravy train.
Once we get the costs under control more people will be able to afford to pay their own way. If the Republicans wont hold the insurance companies to account once the needless lawsuits are gone then we can toss them out. Maybe if the power in Congress starts changing hands every 2 years both sides will start listening
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3115399
If the question is one of expense, is not the better solution prevention rather than cure?
If one looks at cancers specifically, one will find that the US leads developed nations in newly diagnosed cases on an annual basis as a percentage of population.
Why is that? --- Most of them have known causes.
An Oz. of prevention... No?
Prevention is a good thing. How you going to pay for it? I have a plan. Pull all services from illegal aliens. That right there would cover a huge chunk of the costs. I can't imaging it taking longer than 10 years for a good preventive medicine program from starting to save some serious coin. It's just the short term costs that will be nasty.
 

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3116415
Prevention is a good thing. How you going to pay for it? I have a plan. Pull all services from illegal aliens. That right there would cover a huge chunk of the costs..
Include the 33% waste that even the Repulican congress MD's say are in the total health care system... That's both private and public/social(medicare/caid). That 33% is lining someones pocket, it isn't just vaporizing. They won't give it up easy and without a fight either...
 

mantisman51

Active Member
That is exactly right Reef. Pass a law prohibiting illegals from obtaining free healthcare and that would allow more citizens access to healthcare. If we stop rewarding the rats for invading the corn crib, they will scurry elsewhere. I hear Canada has an open door policy and needs all the people they can get to populate the frozen tundra.
 
Top