Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 20 Nov '13 16:51
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/364362/some-dc-exchange-plans-cover-elective-abortion-not-hearing-aids-betsy-woodruff

    It seems that according to Obamacare, junk plan means "doesn't cover abortion".

    The elderly need abortion coverage, not things like hearing aids, eye care or foot care?
  2. 20 Nov '13 16:58
    One that covers prostate cancer.
  3. 20 Nov '13 22:29
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    One that covers prostate cancer.
    I tend to agree, but there still is quite a controversy among medical professionals.

    Some things like prostate cancer, cholesterol monitoring and management, and type 2 diabetes management are cash cows. Same for back pain. What is proper treatment is a matter of conjecture. Even things that are "settled" aren't really. Another example is mammography to detect breast cancer. One school of thought is that cancer is triggered by over exposure to radiation. So detection of cancer via mammography is like detecting wheat in a field after planting seeds.

    What stands out to me, is that in medicine, as in so many other things, one size fits all doesn't work well. Individuals and their doctors ought to be in charge, and be making decisions without insurance or government bureaucrats.
  4. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    20 Nov '13 22:44
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Individuals and their doctors ought to be in charge, and be making decisions without insurance or government bureaucrats.
    It's a pity Republicans don't believe this when the patient is a pregnant woman.
  5. 20 Nov '13 22:57
    Rationed health care is the future of medicine. Get used to it.
    That is the problem with protocols, guidelines, and EMR's. No room for individual judgement, nor professional skill.
    As to Norm's points, I can say a bit.
    Read a review of the state of prostatic cancer diagnosis last year. Seems to be no better now with PSA screening than it was 40 years ago, when as a student, I ordered an acid phosphatase among other tests on an inpatient, which came back elevated, and was chewed out by the medical resident, for "He doesn't have prostate cancer!" Now, the resident had to account for that value! Nonetheless, today, PSA screening is not the answer either, according to the article I read. And, much of the discussion was cost/benefit analysis. The fact is, very few die of prostate cancer compared to the number who are diagnosed with it. So, the thinking runs, why worry?!
    Same story was told about PAP smears in the mid-70's when I was a resident. Medicare wished to limit them, as the cost of doing them exceeded the cost of treating the low number of cervical cancers missed by not screening for them.
    Diabetes? No one knows. But it seems clear that the blood values have been adjusted (lowered) to incorporate more people into the pool of diabetics. Whether that is due to the profit the sale of oral hypoglycemics has generated or not, I do not have any evidence. But, don't believe the company line of too much obesity as the cause either!
    And cholesterol? Never was a risk factor prior to the advent of statin drugs. Now, it's a big deal. That, I know, is a scam. The journal articles preaching the benefits of cholesterol control are all company funded and sponsored. I could go into the human biochemistry and physiology that clearly indicates no relationship, and which has remained unchanged since humans walked the Earth, but that would bore everyone here. However, statins do have an important side-effect that sells a lot of Viagra. Impotence. First, they brought out Lipitor. Then, they brought out Viagra.
    Double-dipping.
    So, since medicine is now pure business, don't expect personalized care. One size fits all, and Obamacare is dancing to that tune.
  6. 21 Nov '13 03:38
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    It's a pity Republicans don't believe this when the patient is a pregnant woman.
    With a pregnant woman, there are two potential patients.
  7. 21 Nov '13 04:00
    Originally posted by DanTriola
    Rationed health care is the future of medicine. Get used to it.
    That is the problem with protocols, guidelines, and EMR's. No room for individual judgement, nor professional skill.
    As to Norm's points, I can say a bit.
    Read a review of the state of prostatic cancer diagnosis last year. Seems to be no better now with PSA screening than it was 40 years ...[text shortened]... iness, don't expect personalized care. One size fits all, and Obamacare is dancing to that tune.
    "Rationed health care is the future of medicine. Get used to it."

    For all of human history, that has been the case. Too few doctors, even when they were witch doctors. Two centuries ago, a superficial wound could well be a death sentence. George Washington died of pneumonia and was treated with leeches.

    The rationing at least was done in a fair manner. If you couldn't make it to a doctor, you didn't get treated. In some cases, money was a factor, in others the doctor treated as many as he could regardless of payment. There has never been a time or place on the planet where there was "enough" health care, and so choices, rationing took place.

    The rationing ought not be done by government bureaucrats, on the basis of who knows what. If the IRS can target conservative groups, why is it inconceivable that death panels would make decisions on the basis of political history?
  8. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    21 Nov '13 05:59
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    It's a pity Republicans don't believe this when the patient is a pregnant woman.
    I do believe that. Clinton said it best: abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
  9. 21 Nov '13 06:47
    Originally posted by normbenign

    The rationing ought not be done by government bureaucrats, on the basis of who knows what.
    Yeah, it's much better to send thousands of people to their deaths than to feel uncomfortable about one's ideology because it is not consistent with reality.
  10. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    21 Nov '13 18:15
    Originally posted by normbenign
    "Rationed health care is the future of medicine. Get used to it."

    For all of human history, that has been the case. Too few doctors, even when they were witch doctors. Two centuries ago, a superficial wound could well be a death sentence. George Washington died of pneumonia and was treated with leeches.

    The rationing at least was done in a fair ...[text shortened]... hy is it inconceivable that death panels would make decisions on the basis of political history?
    The rationing ought not be done by government bureaucrats, on the basis of who knows what.
    Is it not a third of American health spending goes to the cost of private sector, with profit bureaucracies that exist to benefit their shareholders in financial terms?
    What is a "government bureaucrat"? Is it not the employee of a democratically elected government, who can be held to account in many ways with reference to many criteria other than financial profit?
    "...who knows what criteria?" Surely everybody knows thanks to open government and freedom of information. Democracy is there to be used.
    "why is it inconceivable that death panels would make decision..." Well of course that is conceivable in a government run service as it is in a service run for profit, which sends people back to the streets untreated if they cannot pay or if their insurance company applies some obscure clause of a commercial contract to refuse payment. Both types of death panel are conceivable but only the government bureaucrat is open to democratic accountability and influence.
    Why are Americans so determined to do away with democracy and substitute the control over everyone's lives of corporations seeking profit? Well maybe because you tolerate corporate sponsored, corrupt politicians.
  11. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    21 Nov '13 18:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    I do believe that. Clinton said it best: abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
    Very well expressed and this is why the lowest rates of abortion in the World are in Holland, where safe abortion is readily available in a supportive environment of genuine care for women's health, part of a complete package that includes honest sexual education from primary school on, while much higher rates apply not only in the USA where women are subject to endless intrusion by a hysterical moral minority but in countries like Catholic Ireland where abortion is illegal and women are left to die inside modern, well equipped hospitals of simply preventable conditions to preserve the religious sensitivities of its health providers!
  12. 21 Nov '13 19:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan
    [b]...
    Why are Americans so determined to do away with democracy and substitute the control over everyone's lives of corporations seeking profit? Well maybe because you tolerate corporate sponsored, corrupt politicians.
    And that is the crux of America's problem.
    Was is not that long ago that politician were only bought by individuals? I'm certain they still are, when their price is met. But who better can buy than the mega-corporations? Perhaps that ruling made several years back, (early Bush era?) that allows corporations to function like individuals with regard to political fundraising, is the smoking gun? It is the little changes made without the people noticing that have cost us our freedom. Like the frog, we do not notice as the temperature in the pot slowly rises. Now, we're parboiled. And yet, it all seems too neat not to have been planned in advance, to me.
    "Is it I, God, or who, that lifts this arm?" (Chap 131 The Symphony, Moby Dick, by Herman Melville)
    Well, "It ain't me ,babe. No no no, it ain't me" (Sonny Bono, ex-congressman and skier)
    Not anymore.
    I think a lot of us feel this way. So much so, that we've become powerless, as Ahab, to change our course.
  13. 21 Nov '13 19:08
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Very well expressed and this is why the lowest rates of abortion in the World are in Holland, where safe abortion is readily available in a supportive environment of genuine care for women's health, part of a complete package that includes honest sexual education from primary school on, while much higher rates apply not only in the USA where women are subje ...[text shortened]... f simply preventable conditions to preserve the religious sensitivities of its health providers!
    I see you believe that your 'world view' beliefs are better than others. That's really surprising.

    As for abortion, I see it the same way as someone saying killing your own child should be legal, but rare. The reason for this is that abortion is killing your own child.
  14. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    21 Nov '13 19:22
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I see you believe that your 'world view' beliefs are better than others. That's really surprising.

    As for abortion, I see it the same way as someone saying killing your own child should be legal, but rare. The reason for this is that abortion is killing your own child.
    Your first point is just a bit odd. What is your point?

    As for statistics on abortion rates, they are part of my "world view" in so far as my "world view" is informed by valid, publicly available evidence. I base my "world view" on evidence. What do you base your views on? Is it better?

    How you see abortion is relevant to your personal moral choices. I happen to find your opinion unpleasant and offensive and I am conscious that you are likely to find mine unpleasant and offensive. I am not sure what you want to do with that situation. I have no interest either.

    When it comes to setting public policy, then I suggest what is relevant is evidence about what works. If you fail to notice, my "world view" aspires to seeing the fewest possible number of abortions and as such should engage your interest. The evidence shows that the fewest abortions arise in Holland's policy setting and not in that of either the USA as it stands today and certainly not in catholic countries like Ireland that make abortion illegal and act obsessively to curtail women's sexual and health options.
  15. 21 Nov '13 19:28
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Your first point is just a bit odd. What is your point?

    As for statistics on abortion rates, they are part of my "world view" in so far as my "world view" is informed by valid, publicly available evidence. I base my "world view" on evidence. What do you base your views on? Is it better?

    How you see abortion is relevant to your personal moral choices ...[text shortened]... and that make abortion illegal and act obsessively to curtail women's sexual and health options.
    My point is that you believe that a Christian point of view leads to abortions and your point of view leads to fewer abortions. If countries outlawed abortions and jailed anyone having an abortion or giving an abortion, then I'd guess that abortion rates would be even lower than the best abortion legal countries.

    Your 'world view' is informed, but it is also biased. That's not anything special everyone is biased. I was just pointing it out.

    How one views abortion has nothing to do with its very nature. No matter how your view it, an abortion is the killing of an unborn human life. Just because you can't see the child or the child is not as physically mature as other children doesn't change the fact that it is still an independent unborn human life.