(10-03-2013 12:46 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 12:03 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 11:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 11:23 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 10:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And there is something to be said for preventive care. That does save lives and reduce costs.

It saves lives, certainly. It does not reduce cost.

How many colonoscopies are done that find nothing for every one that finds something?

I don't know what the percentages are, or what that alone has to do with anything, but it certainly save costs in many instances.

It does not save costs when you include the costs of the tests that find nothing.

Preventative care is a quality of life issue, not a cost saving issue.

Are we just considering a numbers game here? I mean, sure colonoscopies aren't cheap, but how many would it take to equal the costs of treating multiple cancers, etc? I get what you are saying, but just curious as to the actual numbers. Anyway, I blame lawyers for all the unnecessary medical tests.

Look at the example of how many CT scans it takes to catch one treatable lung cancer.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/2...5M20130129

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...ves-money/

(10-03-2013 01:37 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 12:46 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 12:03 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 11:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 11:23 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  It saves lives, certainly. It does not reduce cost.

How many colonoscopies are done that find nothing for every one that finds something?

I don't know what the percentages are, or what that alone has to do with anything, but it certainly save costs in many instances.

It does not save costs when you include the costs of the tests that find nothing.

Preventative care is a quality of life issue, not a cost saving issue.

Are we just considering a numbers game here? I mean, sure colonoscopies aren't cheap, but how many would it take to equal the costs of treating multiple cancers, etc? I get what you are saying, but just curious as to the actual numbers. Anyway, I blame lawyers for all the unnecessary medical tests.

Look at the example of how many CT scans it takes to catch one treatable lung cancer.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/2...5M20130129

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...ves-money/

Seems like it's worth the cost, at least to the person where the scan catches the cancer. Sometimes it's not all about the $$.

(10-03-2013 01:38 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Seems like it's worth the cost, at least to the person where the scan catches the cancer. Sometimes it's not all about the $$.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing.

I'm just pointing out that preventative care does not save money, as many people like to tout. Preventative care is about quality of life.

(10-03-2013 01:36 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 01:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For the real savings, I'm mostly talking about just getting currently uninsured folks in for regular doctor visits. Visits where doctors can ascertain the lifestyles of patients. Then they can recommend weight loss programs, smoking cessation programs and other lifestyle changes. These can certainly save lives as well as costs to the health care system in general.

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I don't see that as preventative care as you don't need a doctor to do those things.

True, but sometimes that's the only thing than can convince some people...when a medical professional bluntly lays out the consequences. But there are other things that can be found as well...many far short of having your innards probed.

(10-03-2013 01:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 01:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For the real savings, I'm mostly talking about just getting currently uninsured folks in for regular doctor visits. Visits where doctors can ascertain the lifestyles of patients. Then they can recommend weight loss programs, smoking cessation programs and other lifestyle changes. These can certainly save lives as well as costs to the health care system in general.

Tom, your problem is that you are looking at things only from the demand side. That's a common error for those of your political persuasion.

Who is going to supply these visits? Who is going to perform the role of doctor? And why are they going to do this?
In reality, a lot of this is more nurse practitioner sort of stuff. Dovetails very nicely with my idea of a Bismarck system where NPs perform most of the gatekeeping functions on the "free" side.

So, what's the common error for those of your political persuasion? Oh that's right you don't have any, you're perfect. Stuff it.

(10-03-2013 02:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 01:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 01:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For the real savings, I'm mostly talking about just getting currently uninsured folks in for regular doctor visits. Visits where doctors can ascertain the lifestyles of patients. Then they can recommend weight loss programs, smoking cessation programs and other lifestyle changes. These can certainly save lives as well as costs to the health care system in general.

Tom, your problem is that you are looking at things only from the demand side. That's a common error for those of your political persuasion.
Who is going to supply these visits? Who is going to perform the role of doctor? And why are they going to do this?
In reality, a lot of this is more nurse practitioner sort of stuff. Dovetails very nicely with my idea of a Bismarck system where NPs perform most of the gatekeeping functions on the "free" side.

So, what's the common error for those of your political persuasion? Oh that's right you don't have any, you're perfect. Stuff it.

Why don't you tell me what the common error of libertarians is? I have my own ideas but I'd rather hear yours.

And I guess your taking it off on this tangent means that you have no answer for the questions asked.

(10-02-2013 09:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-01-2013 08:25 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-01-2013 11:03 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  crickets

Yeah, Robs ran away a few days ago, now Tom has disappeared as well. I guess we're being mean and unfair by being informed and correct about our positions.

Screw you two. I don't spend every day in my moms basement reading this meaningless message board. I spend a few moments of my work day on here. I don't read it or respond when I'm not working, and I was off yesterday.

So you decided to pop back up and call more people names while continuing to add nothing to the discussion but to troll time.

Good to see some of you miss each other.
Must be a bond forming. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh