The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-02-2013, 01:04 PM   #51
B-Large
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
You don't think annual exams help prevent big time health issues?

Why not just get rid of all PC physicians and send everyone to the ER then?
There is mixed evidence that screenings such as Mammograms are good practice (Irradiating 1000 women in the US to detect 1 case of BC- I guess if you are the 1 case of Cx, then you would say yes, worht it!- but does that justify increasing 999 women's risk of cancer now??)... there is mixed evidence that PSA's on men are good practice... So the case is still to be determined whether annual exams really prevent enough disease to justify the cost. I get an annual exam every year, I pay for it, rarely does it tell me anything we don't already know. Providers are compiling more and more data that will determine what testing is valuable, and what testing is wasteful.

In the end, does a $200 exam and bloodwork makes sense? Probabaly. But I think people should have to pay for it out of their pocket, it gets the invested in their health and give them perpective on cost.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 01:30 PM   #52
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,615
Default

Quote:
It isn’t that conservative ideas about health policy don’t exist, and it isn’t that they won’t work. It’s that right now the feasibility question is purely academic, because even after five years of debating these issues, and despite Eric Cantor’s best efforts, there still aren’t enough Republican lawmakers willing to take even the smallest of steps toward putting those ideas to the test. This means that no matter how much of a “bureaucratic nightmare” the implementation of the current health care law turns out to be, liberals at least have this ace in the hole: When it comes to health care reform, there is still no politically realistic alternative to their approach.
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/201...cy-trainwreck/
TonyR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 01:42 PM   #53
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,733

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
Can you buy retroactive coverage now? Do the republicans have a plan that allows you to buy retroactive coverage?

What a ridiculous argument.
You didn't read the post I was referring to that suggested a person could wait until he was sick with a serious problem under Obama care. I was making the point that yes that would work but not in the case of a heart attack because you can't get retroactive coverage.

So I will use a line from your next post "wake up and smell the coffee before you pop off” ..............
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 02:01 PM   #54
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Large View Post
There is mixed evidence that screenings such as Mammograms are good practice (Irradiating 1000 women in the US to detect 1 case of BC- I guess if you are the 1 case of Cx, then you would say yes, worht it!- but does that justify increasing 999 women's risk of cancer now??)... there is mixed evidence that PSA's on men are good practice... So the case is still to be determined whether annual exams really prevent enough disease to justify the cost. I get an annual exam every year, I pay for it, rarely does it tell me anything we don't already know. Providers are compiling more and more data that will determine what testing is valuable, and what testing is wasteful.

In the end, does a $200 exam and bloodwork makes sense? Probabaly. But I think people should have to pay for it out of their pocket, it gets the invested in their health and give them perpective on cost.
CBO has basically flat out said that preventative medicine overall costs more money, it doesn't save money.

That's not to say the health and peace-of-mind benefits aren't worth anything. But once the 'it saves us all money' argument is off the table, there's no reason that Joe should be forced to pay for Jim's annual physical just because Jim feels better about his health afterwards.

Insurance is meant for dealing with the unpredictable. Not for the routine. If it's used for routine stuff, the only purpose it serves is hiding true costs from consumers, which is never a good thing.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:51 PM.


Denver Broncos