PDA

View Full Version : Obama Don't call them Death Panels.....


HonestChieffan
11-16-2009, 01:49 PM
The evil details in any government run HC set up are the big bugaboo. And in addition to wanting to pay for abortions, the left wants to ration care for seniors. Amazing.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703792304574504020025055040.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

The Rationing Commission
Meet the unelected body that will dictate future medical decisions .

As usual, the most dangerous parts of ObamaCare aren't receiving the scrutiny they deserve—and one of the least examined is a new commission to tell Congress how to control health spending. Democrats are quietly attempting to impose a "global budget" on Medicare, with radical implications for U.S. medicine.

Like most of Europe, the various health bills stipulate that Congress will arbitrarily decide how much to spend on health care for seniors every year—and then invest an unelected board with extraordinary powers to dictate what is covered and how it will be paid for. White House budget director Peter Orszag calls this Medicare commission "critical to our fiscal future" and "one of the most potent reforms."


On that last score, he's right. Prominent health economist Alain Enthoven has likened a global budget to "bombing from 35,000 feet, where you don't see the faces of the people you kill."

As envisioned by the Senate Finance Committee, the commission—all 15 members appointed by the President—would have to meet certain budget targets each year. Starting in 2015, Medicare could not grow more rapidly on a per capita basis than by a measure of inflation. After 2019, it could only grow at the same rate as GDP, plus one percentage point.

The theory is to let technocrats set Medicare payments free from political pressure, as with the military base closing commissions. But that process presented recommendations to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Here, the commission's decisions would go into effect automatically if Congress couldn't agree within six months on different cuts that met the same target. The board's decisions would not be subject to ordinary notice-and-comment rule-making, or even judicial review.

Yet if the goal really is political insulation, then the Medicare Commission is off to a bad start. To avoid a senior revolt, Finance Chairman Max Baucus decided to bar his creation from reducing benefits or raising the eligibility age, which meant that it could only cut costs by tightening Medicare price controls on doctors and hospitals. Doctors and hospitals, naturally, were furious.

So the Montana Democrat bowed and carved out exemptions for such providers, along with hospices and suppliers of medical equipment. Until 2019 the commission will thus only be allowed to attack Medicare Advantage, the program that gives 10 million seniors private insurance choices, and to raise premiums for Medicare prescription drug coverage, which is run by private contractors. Notice a political pattern?

But a decade from now, such limits are off—which also happens to be roughly the time when ObamaCare's spending explodes. The hard budget cap means there is only so much money to be divvied up for care, with no account for demographic changes, such as longer life spans, or for the increasing incidence of diabetes, heart disease and other chronic conditions.

Worse, it makes little room for medical innovations. The commission is mandated to go after "sources of excess cost growth," meaning treatments that are too expensive or whose coverage will boost spending. If researchers find a pricey treatment for Alzheimer's in 2020, that might be banned because it would add new costs and bust the global budget. Or it might decide that "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," as President Obama put it in June.

In other words, the Medicare commission would come to function much like the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which rations care in England. Or a similar Washington state board created in 2003 to control costs. Its handiwork isn't pretty.

The Washington commission, called the Health Technology Assessment, is manned by 11 bureaucrats, including a chiropractor and a "naturopath" who focuses on alternative, er, remedies like herbs and massage therapy. They consider the clinical effectiveness but above all the cost of medical procedures and technologies. If they decide something isn't worth the money, then Olympia won't cover it for some 750,000 Medicaid patients, public employees and prisoners.

So far, the commission has banned knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis, discography for chronic back pain, and implantable infusion pumps for pain not related to cancer. This year, it is targeting such frivolous luxuries as knee replacements, spinal cord stimulation, a specialized autism therapy and MRIs of the abdomen, pelvis or breasts for cancer. It will also rule on routine ultrasounds for pregnancy, which have a "high" efficacy but also a "high" cost.

Currently, the commission is pushing through the most restrictive payment policy in the nation for drug-eluting cardiac stents—simply because bare metal stents are cheaper, even as they result in worse outcomes. If a patient is wheeled into the operating room with chest pains in an emergency, doctors will first have to determine if he's covered by a state plan, then the diameter of his blood vessels and his diabetic condition to decide on the appropriate stent. If they don't, Washington will not reimburse them for "inappropriate care."

If Democrats impose such a commission nationwide, it would constitute a radical change in U.S. health care. The reason that physician discretion—not Washington's cost-minded judgments—is at the core of medicine is that usually there are no "right" answers. The data from large clinical trials produce generic conclusions that rarely apply to individual patients, who have vastly different biologies, response rates to treatments, and often multiple conditions. A breakthrough drug like Herceptin, which is designed for a certain genetic subset of breast-cancer patients, might well be ruled out under such a standardized approach.

It's possible this global budget could become an accounting fiction, like the automatic Medicare cuts Congress currently pretends it will impose on doctors. But health care's fiscal pressures will be even stronger than they are today if ObamaCare passes in anything like its current form. And that is when politicians will want this remote, impersonal and unaccountable central committee to do the inevitable dirty work of denying care.

The only way to take the politics out of health care is to give individuals more power to control medical dollars. And the first step should be not to create even more government spending commitments. The core problem with government-run health care is that it doesn't make decisions in the best interests of patients, but in the best interests of government

BucEyedPea
11-16-2009, 01:59 PM
But, but this is more Newspeak brought to you by the same folks who say our republic is a democracy.

New line for this administration: The bill that kills.

patteeu
11-16-2009, 02:43 PM
Rationing is necessary, but I don't want a central committee of bureaucrats making these choices for everyone. We need to let market forces (i.e. people's self-interested choices) do the rationing.

BucEyedPea
11-16-2009, 03:23 PM
market forces are not rationing per se
rationing means some authority allocates

patteeu
11-16-2009, 03:44 PM
market forces are not rationing per se
rationing means some authority allocates

I don't care to get into your semantic BS, BEP. You can call it whatever you want to call it, but it amounts to the same thing in terms of allocation of resources. We can't afford for every American to get unlimited, cutting edge healthcare, so that care must be limited (i.e. rationed) by some mechanism.

BucEyedPea
11-16-2009, 03:48 PM
I don't care to get into your semantic BS, BEP. You can call it whatever you want to call it, but it amounts to the same thing in terms of allocation of resources. We can't afford for every American to get unlimited, cutting edge healthcare, so that care must be limited (i.e. rationed) by some mechanism.

It not semantics or BS. Nor am I calling it whatever I want. It has a definition and you use it incorrectly. There's a difference between the two. It may be nuanced and have similarities but they are not exactly the same. It is NOT the same as purchasing a policy one can afford and knowing what they're getting. It's an authority deciding where the individual does not have a choice.

1. A fixed portion, especially an amount of food allotted to persons in military service or to civilians in times of scarcity.
2. rations Food issued or available to members of a group.
tr.v. ra·tioned, ra·tion·ing, ra·tions
1. To supply with rations.
2. To distribute as rations: rationed out flour and sugar. See Synonyms at distribute.
3. To restrict to limited allotments, as during wartime.


Enclopedia Britannica
Government allocation of scarce resources and consumer goods, usually adopted during wars, famines, or other national emergencies. Rationing according to use prohibits the less important uses of a commodity (e.g., the use of gasoline for pleasure trips as opposed to work-related travel). Rationing by quantity limits the amounts of a commodity available to each claimant (e.g., a pound of butter per month). Rationing by value limits the amount of money consumers can spend on commodities that are difficult to standardize (e.g., clothing). Point rationing assigns a point value to each commodity and allocates a certain number of points to each consumer. These can be tracked through coupons, which are issued to consumers and must be exchanged for the approved amounts of rationed goods. Consumers in a rationed economy are usually encouraged to save their money or invest in government bonds so that unspent money will not be used for unrationed items or purchases on the black market.



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rationing

patteeu
11-16-2009, 03:51 PM
It not semantics or BS. There's a difference between the two. It may be nuanced and have similarities but they are not exactly the same. It is NOT the same as purchasing a policy one can afford and knowing what they're getting. It's an authority deciding where the individual does not have a choice.

1. A fixed portion, especially an amount of food allotted to persons in military service or to civilians in times of scarcity.
2. rations Food issued or available to members of a group.
tr.v. ra·tioned, ra·tion·ing, ra·tions
1. To supply with rations.
2. To distribute as rations: rationed out flour and sugar. See Synonyms at distribute.
3. To restrict to limited allotments, as during wartime.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rationing

The marketplace restricts scarce resources to limited allotments based on a willingness and ability to pay. That's one of it's purposes. Your definitions seem to fit my use of the word just fine.

BucEyedPea
11-16-2009, 03:55 PM
The marketplace restricts scarce resources to limited allotments based on a willingness and ability to pay. That's one of it's purposes. Your definitions seem to fit my use of the word just fine.
Yeah but that's not rationing. The supply and demand sets the price and people chose to pay or withold. Some will some won't.
When govt allocates that will not happen. Hence it's rationing. It's a collectivistic divying up.

HonestChieffan
11-16-2009, 04:02 PM
distinction without a difference.

BucEyedPea
11-16-2009, 04:03 PM
distinction with a difference.

FYP :thumb:

Royal Fanatic
11-16-2009, 04:04 PM
How the hell BEP or anyone else can defend this monstrosity is beyond me.

patteeu
11-16-2009, 04:05 PM
Yeah but that's not rationing. The supply and demand sets the price and people chose to pay or withold. Some will some won't.
When govt allocates that will not happen. Hence it's rationing. It's a collectivistic divying up.

I understand your position. I don't agree with it. The definitions *you* provided support my contention that "rationing" isn't as narrowly defined as you want it to be. I realize that you don't want the negative baggage that comes along with the word, but that's tough. Deal with it. Somebody ends up without a cutting-edge, life-saving/life-extending treatment either way.

HonestChieffan
11-16-2009, 04:05 PM
shakes head.

How Banyon like of you.

patteeu
11-16-2009, 04:05 PM
How the hell BEP or anyone else can defend this monstrosity is beyond me.

She's not. She agrees with me, she just doesn't like the no-spin word I'm using.

BucEyedPea
11-16-2009, 04:06 PM
The Market Does Not Ration Health Care: Voluntary Exchange Is Not Rationing (Part 1)

From Capitalism Magazine

In response to the criticism about rationing, advocates of politicized medicine routinely reply that the market also "rations" health care, so the debate is merely about which form of rationing is best. Many critics of Obamacare agree to the terms of that debate and proceed to argue that political rationing is worse than market "rationing."

But obtaining goods and services on an open market via the price system of supply and demand is not rationing at all. Claims that it is distort the language and obscure crucial distinctions between political rationing and market distribution.


http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5646


Must be the NeoCons articulating that the market is doing rationing. Seems so since they're not real free marketers.

BucEyedPea
11-16-2009, 04:07 PM
shakes head.

How Banyon like of you.

As banyon'ish as Capitalism Magazine?

I doubt it. He reads The Nation. It's just Newspeak set by the left...yet the right is allowing them to frame the argument that way which is a fallacy.
Logic requires the ability to see differences and similarities or sameness.

Price Distribution Versus Political Rationing (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5646)

HonestChieffan
11-16-2009, 04:10 PM
I was refering to the act of "FYP", not the content of your central arguement. You may now return to the program at hand.

Just stay on topic and dont ignore the reality of government limiting (avoided rationing word) access to primary care based on whatever whim they, the government decides.

BucEyedPea
11-16-2009, 04:13 PM
Here ya' go Pat....These guys said what I have said:

The Definition and Application of Rationing
Rationing is defined by three essential characteristics. First, rationing means that some central authority distributes goods or services. Second, the property rights to the goods or services are usurped or not clearly defined. Third, under rationing recipients have some recognized claim to a portion of the goods or services.

A closer look at each condition clarifies the meaning of the term and its application to various examples.

Rationing involves some central authority. Price distribution does not. In the usual cases this is unambiguous.

BucEyedPea
11-16-2009, 04:14 PM
I was refering to the act of "FYP", not the content of your central arguement. You may now return to the program at hand.
Oh! Well, the net does lead to misunderstandings. It wasn't clear.
Just stay on topic and dont ignore the reality of government limiting (avoided rationing word) access to primary care based on whatever whim they, the government decides.

Yeah, well if the debate is going to framed by someone as in the free-market rations then that has to be gotten out of the way during the argument. Just so we're clear on the terms.

patteeu
11-16-2009, 04:15 PM
The Market Does Not Ration Health Care: Voluntary Exchange Is Not Rationing (Part 1)

From Capitalism Magazine



http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5646


Must be the NeoCons articulating that the market is doing rationing. Seems so since they're not real free marketers.

In addition to taking your position on this semantic argument, your source admits that "many critics of Obamacare agree to the terms of that debate and proceed to argue that political rationing is worse than market 'rationing.'" We could go back and forth trading appeals to authority all day, but that would be pointless. Your source is participating in a semantic battle of terminology because it benefits his political position if government rationing is called rationing while market-based rationing is called something like "the rights of individuals to control their own resources and trade voluntarily". I'm not interested in the battle of terminology at the moment. I'm more interested in making a substantive point.

BucEyedPea
11-16-2009, 04:18 PM
Um, you're taking that out of context because he's correcting them. He corrects that in the next paragraph which you left out. Those folks who call it that are allowing the left to frame the debate ( newspeak-style) in order to win by implying there's no difference between what the market does and what the govt will do. It's a way to seduce people with semantics to get them to buy but it's a fraud.

patteeu
11-16-2009, 04:22 PM
Um, you're taking that out of context because he's correcting them. It's a allowing the left to frame the debate ( newspeak-style) in order to win by implying there's no difference between what the market does and what the govt will do. It's a way to seduce people with semantics.

Sure it is, but what you've just done is admit that I was right all along. You're engaging in a semantic argument that has no bearing on the substance of the issue. It's not wrong to use the word "rationing" the way I did as you tried to claim, it's just not the best spin strategy for seducing the know-nothings in the middle.

BucEyedPea
11-16-2009, 04:40 PM
Sure it is, but what you've just done is admit that I was right all along. You're engaging in a semantic argument that has no bearing on the substance of the issue. It's not wrong to use the word "rationing" the way I did as you tried to claim, it's just not the best spin strategy for seducing the know-nothings in the middle.

No I am not. I saw that part and I still said they were wrong which is what the author was doing. He's justing pointing out who he's referring to.

It's not semantics. It's a misnowner.

headsnap
11-16-2009, 04:46 PM
pat and BEP, get a room already!






I've had more meaningful and productive arguments with my wife... sheesh...

banyon
11-16-2009, 04:47 PM
As banyon'ish as Capitalism Magazine?

I doubt it. He reads The Nation. It's just Newspeak set by the left...yet the right is allowing them to frame the argument that way which is a fallacy.
Logic requires the ability to see differences and similarities or sameness.

Price Distribution Versus Political Rationing (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5646)

I do read The Nation, it's a pretty well regarded left-leaning publication. I also read and subscribe to The Economist, U.S. News & World Report, and Sports Illustrated. If I could afford it, I would subscribe to Foreign Affairs and The Financial Times as well as the New york Times and the Wall Street Journal.

It is very different than your approach of reading and relying on only select fringe websites (pretty much just mises.org and lewrockwell.com) for information.

Why it was important for you to drag me into this quibbling argument, I don't know.

Jenson71
11-16-2009, 04:58 PM
I do read The Nation

Socialist.

The Economist

Mercantilist.

U.S. News & World Report

Marxist.

Sports Illustrated.

Fasco-socio-Leninist

Foreign Affairs

Neoconservative

and The Financial Times

Mercantilist-socialist

New york Times

Stalinist-Maoist

the Wall Street Journal.

Neoconservative-mercantilist-fascist

BucEyedPea
11-16-2009, 05:03 PM
I've had more meaningful and productive arguments with my wife... sheesh...

Well, I think this is meaningful because he who frames the argument wins.

Jenson71
11-16-2009, 05:05 PM
Well, I think this is meaningful because he who frames the argument wins.

Speaking of, can I expect a response on the Individual Rights thread?

BucEyedPea
11-16-2009, 05:22 PM
You got the Economist incorrect. That's Keynesian too. But with a mercantilist flavor.

BucEyedPea
11-16-2009, 05:50 PM
"Rationing IS coercion, that is, orders, and nothing else whatever. The essential distinction of a free market, as against any other kind of system, lies in the absence of coercion and in the method of exchange by voluntary choice" —Ayn Rand


If we accept the idea that a free pricing system is a form of rationing, the unavoidable logical implications and consequences are as follows:

If a free pricing system is a form of rationing, then every person living under it has an equal claim upon and title to all the goods produced.
(To ration means to share; a free pricing system is not based on the idea of sharing anything; a rationing system is.)

But anyone can see that under a free pricing system everybody is not getting an equal share of everything. Therefore, this form of rationing is not working well or fairly. Why isn't it? Because the rationing is done by private persons in their own selfish interests. What is the solution? Another form of rationing -- which would be run by disinterested public servants for the common good of all.

Once the people's mind has reached this state of confusion, the rest is easy. The collectivists have won, because their basic premise has been accepted. ... Ayn Rand

Jenson71
11-16-2009, 06:04 PM
Speaking of, can I expect a response on the Individual Rights thread?

No? Yes? No? I hope to hear from you.

patteeu
11-16-2009, 06:05 PM
Well, I think this is meaningful because he who frames the argument wins.

Again, you're admitting that you're arguing semantics even though you're apparently not smart enough to realize it.

RedNeckRaider
11-16-2009, 06:55 PM
Death Czars if you will~

bobbymitch
11-17-2009, 03:18 PM
Yep - The US Dept of Health and Human Service's Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has "recommended" the delaying of breast cancer screenings from 40 to 50. No sense in spending the $$ to detect it early. And if over 75, you're pretty much screwed as they recommend against any screening.

Already starting to weed out the elderly.

mlyonsd
11-17-2009, 03:31 PM
Yep - The US Dept of Health and Human Service's Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has "recommended" the delaying of breast cancer screenings from 40 to 50. No sense in spending the $$ to detect it early. And if over 75, you're pretty much screwed as they recommend against any screening.

Already starting to weed out the elderly.

My SIL was diagnosed with BC at age 46 and she ended up having a complete double Mastectomy.

I'm pretty sure she'd argue the DoH's findings.

This is EXACTLY what some on the board have been saying all along. Turning health care over to the entity that not only decides when procedures are justified but also directs the funding will eventually lead us down the road of second world medicine. This is a perfect example of how health care rationing will take place.

BC is one of the easiest types of cancers to detect at a stage with a huge success rate of recovery, and one of the easiest ways to save a woman's life.

The DoH is a disgrace.

Iowanian
11-17-2009, 03:32 PM
They're not death panels, they're "Life Value Focus Groups"

InChiefsHell
11-17-2009, 03:41 PM
Good Lord, Pat and BEP spent 2 pages arguing about the semantics instead of the nuts and bolts of the OP, which they both agree on...

...seriously, the "I'm right, your and idiot" back and forth on the Planet kills me sometimes. You guys AGREE on the OP, and still you find a way to spend 2 whole pages arguing...

headsnap
11-17-2009, 03:50 PM
Good Lord, Pat and BEP spent 2 pages arguing about the semantics instead of the nuts and bolts of the OP, which they both agree on...

...seriously, the "I'm right, your and idiot" back and forth on the Planet kills me sometimes. You guys AGREE on the OP, and still you find a way to spend 2 whole pages arguing...

it was quite comical for such a serious thread...

<table style="background-color: White;" align="center" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="2" width="480"><tbody><tr style="background-color: rgb(222, 246, 255);"><tr style="background-color: rgb(222, 246, 255);"><td style="background-color: rgb(222, 246, 255);"> pat: The white zone is for immediate unloading passangers only. There is no stopping in the red zone.
BEP: The white zone is for immediate unloading passangers only. There is no stopping in the red zone.
pat: The white zone is for immediate unloading passangers only. There is no stopping in the red zone.
BEP: The white zone is for immediate unloading passangers only. There is no stopping in the red zone.
pat: The red zone is for loading and unloading passangers. There is no stopping in the white zone.
BEP: No. The white zone is for loading and unloading. There is not stopping in the red zone.
pat: The red zone's always been for loading and unloading. There is no stopping in the white zone.
BEP: Don't tell me which zone's for stopping and which zone's for loading!
pat: Listen, BEP, don't start (http://www.startinvestingonline.com/) your white zone shit again. There is just no stopping in the white zone.
BEP: Really, pat, why pretend? We both know what you're talking about. You want me to have an abortion.
pat: It's really the only sensible thing to do. If it's done properly, therapeutically, there's no danger involved. </td></tr></tr></tbody></table>

BucEyedPea
11-17-2009, 04:02 PM
Again, you're admitting that you're arguing semantics even though you're apparently not smart enough to realize it.

Fair enough. But it was the implication in that post of yours that it was "just" semantics as in there's really no distinction when there is. You were dismissing it. That's usually what that type of protest is about. Don't deny it.

Now if you mean it in the context of trying to establish clear thinking on what is being discussed or what is actually happening in reality, then no semantics has a valuable role especially when someone's operating off of a wrong definition. Besides you've done your own fair share of parsing words.

If you wish to understand the present political situation, you need understand how politicians use words. A decadent society abuses words.

BucEyedPea
11-17-2009, 04:07 PM
Good Lord, Pat and BEP spent 2 pages arguing about the semantics instead of the nuts and bolts of the OP, which they both agree on...

...seriously, the "I'm right, your and idiot" back and forth on the Planet kills me sometimes. You guys AGREE on the OP, and still you find a way to spend 2 whole pages arguing...

Of course. Sometimes we can disagree with the type of defense of a stand that someone is using particularly when it's inaccurate or a fallacy. So as far as I'm concerned, establishing what rationing is in reality was a distinction worth being made. It's an error. Let's face it, patteeu has done his fair share of the same thing. Sometimes a part of a debate needs to clear out the sub-topics that support the main one.

patteeu
11-17-2009, 04:11 PM
Good Lord, Pat and BEP spent 2 pages arguing about the semantics instead of the nuts and bolts of the OP, which they both agree on...

...seriously, the "I'm right, your and idiot" back and forth on the Planet kills me sometimes. You guys AGREE on the OP, and still you find a way to spend 2 whole pages arguing...

Wow, your pages must be short. Crank that baby up to 80. :)

patteeu
11-17-2009, 04:19 PM
We need to admit the reality that whether we use market forces to do it or whether we use death panels, the only way that overall healthcare costs can be brought under control is for some people to get less healthcare than is theoretically possible. To the person on the short end of the stick, I'm sure it won't matter whether it's called rationing or discount medicine.

To properly evaluate how we want these limited resources to be allocated, we need to recognize that they are limited. For Republicans to talk about death panels without admitting that the idea of gold-plated-care-for-all (even for all of those currently covered) is an unachievable goal is disingenuous.

Warrior5
11-17-2009, 04:33 PM
Yep - The US Dept of Health and Human Service's Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has "recommended" the delaying of breast cancer screenings from 40 to 50. No sense in spending the $$ to detect it early. And if over 75, you're pretty much screwed as they recommend against any screening.

Already starting to weed out the elderly.

I thought the American Cancer Society recommended yearly mammograms starting at 40. Didn't we just finish with Cancer Awareness month last month? What could possibly be the reason for delaying screenings?

My wife had her first screening at 40... doctors found a small lump and were able to treat it in time.

If anyone has a reason for this, I'd seriously like to hear it. I'd also like to know what the ladies out there think of this.

patteeu
11-17-2009, 04:44 PM
I thought the American Cancer Society recommended yearly mammograms starting at 40. Didn't we just finish with Cancer Awareness month last month? What could possibly be the reason for delaying screenings?

My wife had her first screening at 40... doctors found a small lump and were able to treat it in time.

If anyone has a reason for this, I'd seriously like to hear it. I'd also like to know what the ladies out there think of this.

Here are two possible reasons. I don't have a clue about whether either of them are right:

1) The total cost of mammograms for women between the ages of 40 and 50 is greater than the value of catching the relatively small number of cases that are discovered. (I realize that for the woman who dies because she wasn't screened before 50, the value of that screening is incalculable, but I'm talking about a macro perspective).

2) The radiation dosage produced by yearly screening starting at age 40 does more damage than good as compared to biannual screening starting at age 50.

bobbymitch
11-17-2009, 05:24 PM
Let's step back a bit and take a look at the administration's point of view.

By deciding not to test for or treat cancer patients, they can kill several birds (pun intended) with one fell swoop.

1. They would lower health care costs dramatically. Perhaps to the point where they could actually afford to go after medicare fraud. Cost problem solved.

2. It would solve the unemployment problem. More people dying would lower the employment pool, opening up jobs to others. Unemployment problem solved.

3. It would get rid of those with "bad genes" or who have lead unhealthy life styles. Only the fittest would survive. No need to worry about pre-existing conditions.

Obviously, all bets are off if you are a Democrat and have cancer, then they will spend a fortune vainly trying to save your fat ass. (Sorry, couldn't resist it)

HonestChieffan
11-17-2009, 05:31 PM
Here are two possible reasons. I don't have a clue about whether either of them are right:

1) The total cost of mammograms for women between the ages of 40 and 50 is greater than the value of catching the relatively small number of cases that are discovered. (I realize that for the woman who dies because she wasn't screened before 50, the value of that screening is incalculable, but I'm talking about a macro perspective).

2) The radiation dosage produced by yearly screening starting at age 40 does more damage than good as compared to biannual screening starting at age 50.

future....

3) We didn't budget enough and the money wont be available becuse abortion numbers were higher in the second quarter than anticipated