House passes the Health Care Bill

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Read something other than the NYT and CNN to educate yourself about this issue.

This is good advice. So good, in fact, that you might take it yourself.

The government isn't going to dictate salaries. The government is not going to "run" health care.

If you are happy with your insurance, you will keep it. If doctors are not willing to work for the payments your insurance provides, that's a problem between you, your insurance, and your doctor. That doesn't involve the government.

Today, a lot of people show up at emergency rooms and are unable to pay for their care. If, in the future, those individuals have insurance, payment to doctors will be much more likely than it is today. That will attract more doctors to the field.

It's interesting that you are surprised that others have their heads in the sand about healthcare reform, yet don't even understand the basics of what is happening yourself.

I understand basic economics and business principles. Health insurance costs are going to increase. Therefore companies, in a rational business decision, are going to choose to pay the penalty instead of paying the increased health insurance costs, and drop their group insurance plan. Then the employees will have to take the public plan. This will happen slowly, but it will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Read something other than the NYT and CNN to educate yourself about this issue.

This is good advice. So good, in fact, that you might take it yourself.

The government isn't going to dictate salaries. The government is not going to "run" health care.

If you are happy with your insurance, you will keep it. If doctors are not willing to work for the payments your insurance provides, that's a problem between you, your insurance, and your doctor. That doesn't involve the government.

Today, a lot of people show up at emergency rooms and are unable to pay for their care. If, in the future, those individuals have insurance, payment to doctors will be much more likely than it is today. That will attract more doctors to the field.

It's interesting that you are surprised that others have their heads in the sand about healthcare reform, yet don't even understand the basics of what is happening yourself.

I understand basic economics and business principles. Health insurance costs are going to increase. Therefore companies, in a rational business decision, are going to choose to pay the penalty instead of paying the increased health insurance costs, and drop their group insurance plan. Then the employees will have to take the public plan. This will happen slowly, but it will.

Do you have a 1(800) number we can call for other psychic predictions?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I understand basic economics and business principles. Health insurance costs are going to increase. Therefore companies, in a rational business decision, are going to choose to pay the penalty instead of paying the increased health insurance costs, and drop their group insurance plan. Then the employees will have to take the public plan. This will happen slowly, but it will.

Health insurance costs are increasing already and have been for years. The reforms will result in lower costs.

You keep asking about tort reform. I assume that you are aware that Obama met with the Republican leadership and said he'd be willing to put tort reform on the table and asked what they would offer in exchange. They had nothing. So, tort reform is not a priority. If you support tort reform, then you should ask the Republicans to engage in the political process rather than simply opposing everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Read something other than the NYT and CNN to educate yourself about this issue.

This is good advice. So good, in fact, that you might take it yourself.

The government isn't going to dictate salaries. The government is not going to "run" health care.

If you are happy with your insurance, you will keep it. If doctors are not willing to work for the payments your insurance provides, that's a problem between you, your insurance, and your doctor. That doesn't involve the government.

Today, a lot of people show up at emergency rooms and are unable to pay for their care. If, in the future, those individuals have insurance, payment to doctors will be much more likely than it is today. That will attract more doctors to the field.

It's interesting that you are surprised that others have their heads in the sand about healthcare reform, yet don't even understand the basics of what is happening yourself.

I understand basic economics and business principles. Health insurance costs are going to increase. Therefore companies, in a rational business decision, are going to choose to pay the penalty instead of paying the increased health insurance costs, and drop their group insurance plan. Then the employees will have to take the public plan. This will happen slowly, but it will.

Why do you think the bill raises the cost of health care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you think the bill raises the cost of health care?

I apologize if thiis is insulting to those on both sides who have been telling us the effects the bill will produce:

My belief, admittedly not based on any special expertise, is that there is no way to predict the effects of a bill this complicated about a system as complex as health care within an economy as confused as ours, and that the prognostications are basically ex post facto justifications for being for it or against it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Health insurance costs are increasing already and have been for years. The reforms will result in lower costs.

Toto, we are not in Kansas anymore. Maybe this happens in the land of Oz, but please tell me how you think reforms will result in lower costs. Over the years I have seen so many "new" ways to reduce medical spending:utilization management, precertification requirements, and step therapies to name a few. Yet medical costs continue to rise. Reforms are not going to significantly reduce medical costs. We live in a time of incredibly advancing and innovative medical science. And this costs, much more than we realize. Take prescription drugs, for example. Almost every month a new specialty drug is approved by the FDA. Can't walk because of your arthritis and nothing is helping - try Enbrel. Oh yeah, its $1,000 a shot. Now don't go and tell me how this is the greedy drug manufacturers cashing in on pain - this is the cost of R&D, trials, more trials and the lawyers to double check everything.

I am not saying that there is no fat in the current medical system - there is for sure. But, IMHO, no way are the reforms in the house bill going to make medical expenses lower.

[Anonymous]

Let's address several points:

If you like you're insurance you'll get to keep it - yes, and there's a tooth fairy, the check is in the mail, and we're from the government and we're here to help. Right now you may be able to "keep" your insurance - how generous of the government to allow me to enter into a private transaction. But as employers are incentivized to drop people from coverage (which is intention of the Democrats), which they are - given that the penalties for not offering it will be less than the cost of offering insurance, you will lose your choice, and you will have to go to a program offered by the government.

Furthermore, you will not have the choice to avoid buying any insurance b/c under the House bill you will pay substantial penalties. For a family of 4 earning $103,000 a year they will pay approximately $17,000 a year in insurance under the House plan not to mention their typical 50% taxes (state, local, federal), which will leave them less than $40,000 a year to pay for rent/mortgage, food, clothing, gas, etc.

Under the Senate Bill you can pay a minor penalty and jump onto insurance once you get sick (sort of play medical roulette), which sounds great, except that in order for the insurance companies to make any kind of money they will have to charge astronomical rates to the few idiots who are not dumb enough to avoid buying their insurance in the first place. Actuarial planning allows the companies to account for future pay-outs, while making some profits. And before you fall into the hoary cliche of rich insurance companies - as reported on Market Place last week (from NPR - not a hot bed of conservatism), they are averaging about a 3% annual profit, which is nothing in the business world. Given that the plan from the Democrats is that they will have to take everyone without regard for pre-existing conditions that means that they will have tremendous burdens and in order to stay in business they will have to charge these ridiculous rates. But maybe the government wants to force them out, which again will eliminate your opportunity to pick your own insurance and will leave the government as the sole insurer - which is the goal of the public option, which has actually often been stated by its proponents.

Thus you'll be left with government bureaucrats to decide on your care. Given that the Congress has utilized fuzzy math to get their plans under a Trillion dollars in expected costs (a TRILLION DOLLARS!!! - and what government program ever lives up to its expected costs), you know that they will be looking to save money by reducing allowed procedures, rationing health care, and instituting waiting and lines. Having had a father who recently passed away from pancreatic cancer, I know that the only chance many of these people have is quick care - which is not something you get under rationed systems, see England or Canada for examples. Moreover, Congress has used 10 years worth of revenues and only implemented the majority of the programs to start after 4 years, so that they have 6 years worth of expenses paid for by 10 years revenue, after that costs will explode. They get there by among other things cutting 25% of Medicare Advantage, which is one of the most popular programs among Seniors because it offers a chance to choose your own doctors and treatments (tell me again about how you'll be able to keep your insurance)? When companies like Aetna pointed this out to their recipients the administration threatened to have them investigated by the regulators. And before you think I'm some insurance company shill let me point out that in private practice I was involved in multiple litigation cases against the companies, and that I now work for the federal government (so I do not intrinsically dislike the government, but I understand how inefficient and archaic it can be).

So thus you will be having your decisions made by a bureaucrat who will be considering his/her promotions by how effectively they can "manage" costs. These are the same people who have been unable to manage the swine flu vaccine program (and before claiming its the companies' fault, compare to Europe, which worked cooperatively with its companies to use different feeder technologies to produce virus more quickly and issue smaller doses, forgo long storage periods, etc.). Your government has not been able to ensure pregnant women are inoculated, but has made sure to send enough doses to Guantanamo to vaccinate all the prisoners there (these are the people who will decide your and your family's health care).

Finally, the analogy of the "rich" people eating around the Thanksgiving table reminds me of some sort of smarmy Hallmark card written by someone like Che Guevara. A better analogy (to improve upon yours), is the happy family sitting around the table eating the dinner that they bought and paid for, and that they made through their hard work. Their neighbors who don't work, fight, complain, and make excuses start banging on the door about how they have a right to the food. We'll also add a tiny Tim character - the honest and impoverished poor cripple who is asking "please Sir, can I have some?" Around that point someone from the government shows up, takes a dump in the middle of the table, throws it all in a pot, stirs it together, invites everyone in, gives everyone the same share, calls for more people from down the street or in the next country (the Hispanic Caucus inserted a provision in the House bill that there can be no residency requirement for the government insurance program), and tells everyone to dig into their turkey and crap sandwich. As the happy government fellow leaves he hands a bill to the productive family and tells them to work harder, there are a lot of people counting on them to continue to provide more sandwiches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's address several points:

If you like you're insurance you'll get to keep it - yes, and there's a tooth fairy, the check is in the mail, and we're from the government and we're here to help. Right now you may be able to "keep" your insurance - how generous of the government to allow me to enter into a private transaction. But as employers are incentivized to drop people from coverage (which is intention of the Democrats), which they are - given that the penalties for not offering it will be less than the cost of offering insurance, you will lose your choice, and you will have to go to a program offered by the government.

Furthermore, you will not have the choice to avoid buying any insurance b/c under the House bill you will pay substantial penalties. For a family of 4 earning $103,000 a year they will pay approximately $17,000 a year in insurance under the House plan not to mention their typical 50% taxes (state, local, federal), which will leave them less than $40,000 a year to pay for rent/mortgage, food, clothing, gas, etc.

Under the Senate Bill you can pay a minor penalty and jump onto insurance once you get sick (sort of play medical roulette), which sounds great, except that in order for the insurance companies to make any kind of money they will have to charge astronomical rates to the few idiots who are not dumb enough to avoid buying their insurance in the first place. Actuarial planning allows the companies to account for future pay-outs, while making some profits. And before you fall into the hoary cliche of rich insurance companies - as reported on Market Place last week (from NPR - not a hot bed of conservatism), they are averaging about a 3% annual profit, which is nothing in the business world. Given that the plan from the Democrats is that they will have to take everyone without regard for pre-existing conditions that means that they will have tremendous burdens and in order to stay in business they will have to charge these ridiculous rates. But maybe the government wants to force them out, which again will eliminate your opportunity to pick your own insurance and will leave the government as the sole insurer - which is the goal of the public option, which has actually often been stated by its proponents.

Thus you'll be left with government bureaucrats to decide on your care. Given that the Congress has utilized fuzzy math to get their plans under a Trillion dollars in expected costs (a TRILLION DOLLARS!!! - and what government program ever lives up to its expected costs), you know that they will be looking to save money by reducing allowed procedures, rationing health care, and instituting waiting and lines. Having had a father who recently passed away from pancreatic cancer, I know that the only chance many of these people have is quick care - which is not something you get under rationed systems, see England or Canada for examples. Moreover, Congress has used 10 years worth of revenues and only implemented the majority of the programs to start after 4 years, so that they have 6 years worth of expenses paid for by 10 years revenue, after that costs will explode. They get there by among other things cutting 25% of Medicare Advantage, which is one of the most popular programs among Seniors because it offers a chance to choose your own doctors and treatments (tell me again about how you'll be able to keep your insurance)? When companies like Aetna pointed this out to their recipients the administration threatened to have them investigated by the regulators. And before you think I'm some insurance company shill let me point out that in private practice I was involved in multiple litigation cases against the companies, and that I now work for the federal government (so I do not intrinsically dislike the government, but I understand how inefficient and archaic it can be).

So thus you will be having your decisions made by a bureaucrat who will be considering his/her promotions by how effectively they can "manage" costs. These are the same people who have been unable to manage the swine flu vaccine program (and before claiming its the companies' fault, compare to Europe, which worked cooperatively with its companies to use different feeder technologies to produce virus more quickly and issue smaller doses, forgo long storage periods, etc.). Your government has not been able to ensure pregnant women are inoculated, but has made sure to send enough doses to Guantanamo to vaccinate all the prisoners there (these are the people who will decide your and your family's health care).

Finally, the analogy of the "rich" people eating around the Thanksgiving table reminds me of some sort of smarmy Hallmark card written by someone like Che Guevara. A better analogy (to improve upon yours), is the happy family sitting around the table eating the dinner that they bought and paid for, and that they made through their hard work. Their neighbors who don't work, fight, complain, and make excuses start banging on the door about how they have a right to the food. We'll also add a tiny Tim character - the honest and impoverished poor cripple who is asking "please Sir, can I have some?" Around that point someone from the government shows up, takes a dump in the middle of the table, throws it all in a pot, stirs it together, invites everyone in, gives everyone the same share, calls for more people from down the street or in the next country (the Hispanic Caucus inserted a provision in the House bill that there can be no residency requirement for the government insurance program), and tells everyone to dig into their turkey and crap sandwich. As the happy government fellow leaves he hands a bill to the productive family and tells them to work harder, there are a lot of people counting on them to continue to provide more sandwiches.

Why aren't employers incentivized to drop health care today? There is no government penalty at all today. The only pressure that currently exists is the market pressure to offer a competitive compensation package to prospective employees, and this won't change.

As for being "forced" to buy insurance, I would think that a person with your working knowledge would realize that the cost of free riders is borne by our insurance plans and the government - in other words they are screwing you. Everyone gets treated somewhere eventually, and it doesn't happen for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's address several points:

If you like you're insurance you'll get to keep it - yes, and there's a tooth fairy, the check is in the mail, and we're from the government and we're here to help. Right now you may be able to "keep" your insurance - how generous of the government to allow me to enter into a private transaction. But as employers are incentivized to drop people from coverage (which is intention of the Democrats), which they are - given that the penalties for not offering it will be less than the cost of offering insurance, you will lose your choice, and you will have to go to a program offered by the government.

Furthermore, you will not have the choice to avoid buying any insurance b/c under the House bill you will pay substantial penalties. For a family of 4 earning $103,000 a year they will pay approximately $17,000 a year in insurance under the House plan not to mention their typical 50% taxes (state, local, federal), which will leave them less than $40,000 a year to pay for rent/mortgage, food, clothing, gas, etc.

Under the Senate Bill you can pay a minor penalty and jump onto insurance once you get sick (sort of play medical roulette), which sounds great, except that in order for the insurance companies to make any kind of money they will have to charge astronomical rates to the few idiots who are not dumb enough to avoid buying their insurance in the first place. Actuarial planning allows the companies to account for future pay-outs, while making some profits. And before you fall into the hoary cliche of rich insurance companies - as reported on Market Place last week (from NPR - not a hot bed of conservatism), they are averaging about a 3% annual profit, which is nothing in the business world. Given that the plan from the Democrats is that they will have to take everyone without regard for pre-existing conditions that means that they will have tremendous burdens and in order to stay in business they will have to charge these ridiculous rates. But maybe the government wants to force them out, which again will eliminate your opportunity to pick your own insurance and will leave the government as the sole insurer - which is the goal of the public option, which has actually often been stated by its proponents.

Thus you'll be left with government bureaucrats to decide on your care. Given that the Congress has utilized fuzzy math to get their plans under a Trillion dollars in expected costs (a TRILLION DOLLARS!!! - and what government program ever lives up to its expected costs), you know that they will be looking to save money by reducing allowed procedures, rationing health care, and instituting waiting and lines. Having had a father who recently passed away from pancreatic cancer, I know that the only chance many of these people have is quick care - which is not something you get under rationed systems, see England or Canada for examples. Moreover, Congress has used 10 years worth of revenues and only implemented the majority of the programs to start after 4 years, so that they have 6 years worth of expenses paid for by 10 years revenue, after that costs will explode. They get there by among other things cutting 25% of Medicare Advantage, which is one of the most popular programs among Seniors because it offers a chance to choose your own doctors and treatments (tell me again about how you'll be able to keep your insurance)? When companies like Aetna pointed this out to their recipients the administration threatened to have them investigated by the regulators. And before you think I'm some insurance company shill let me point out that in private practice I was involved in multiple litigation cases against the companies, and that I now work for the federal government (so I do not intrinsically dislike the government, but I understand how inefficient and archaic it can be).

So thus you will be having your decisions made by a bureaucrat who will be considering his/her promotions by how effectively they can "manage" costs. These are the same people who have been unable to manage the swine flu vaccine program (and before claiming its the companies' fault, compare to Europe, which worked cooperatively with its companies to use different feeder technologies to produce virus more quickly and issue smaller doses, forgo long storage periods, etc.). Your government has not been able to ensure pregnant women are inoculated, but has made sure to send enough doses to Guantanamo to vaccinate all the prisoners there (these are the people who will decide your and your family's health care).

Finally, the analogy of the "rich" people eating around the Thanksgiving table reminds me of some sort of smarmy Hallmark card written by someone like Che Guevara. A better analogy (to improve upon yours), is the happy family sitting around the table eating the dinner that they bought and paid for, and that they made through their hard work. Their neighbors who don't work, fight, complain, and make excuses start banging on the door about how they have a right to the food. We'll also add a tiny Tim character - the honest and impoverished poor cripple who is asking "please Sir, can I have some?" Around that point someone from the government shows up, takes a dump in the middle of the table, throws it all in a pot, stirs it together, invites everyone in, gives everyone the same share, calls for more people from down the street or in the next country (the Hispanic Caucus inserted a provision in the House bill that there can be no residency requirement for the government insurance program), and tells everyone to dig into their turkey and crap sandwich. As the happy government fellow leaves he hands a bill to the productive family and tells them to work harder, there are a lot of people counting on them to continue to provide more sandwiches.

Now here is someone that I would want to date. Actually I am happily married, but you get my point.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Let's address several points:

Yes, let's.

Anonymous wrote:
If you like you're insurance you'll get to keep it - yes, and there's a tooth fairy, the check is in the mail, and we're from the government and we're here to help. Right now you may be able to "keep" your insurance - how generous of the government to allow me to enter into a private transaction. But as employers are incentivized to drop people from coverage (which is intention of the Democrats), which they are - given that the penalties for not offering it will be less than the cost of offering insurance, you will lose your choice, and you will have to go to a program offered by the government.

At the moment, there are no penalties for employers who do not provide insurance. Yet, insurance is frequently provided. Your prediction that low penalties will cause employers to drop insurance when they currently offer it now with no penalties makes no sense.

Anonymous wrote:
Under the Senate Bill you can pay a minor penalty and jump onto insurance once you get sick (sort of play medical roulette), which sounds great, except that in order for the insurance companies to make any kind of money they will have to charge astronomical rates to the few idiots who are not dumb enough to avoid buying their insurance in the first place. Actuarial planning allows the companies to account for future pay-outs, while making some profits. And before you fall into the hoary cliche of rich insurance companies - as reported on Market Place last week (from NPR - not a hot bed of conservatism), they are averaging about a 3% annual profit, which is nothing in the business world. Given that the plan from the Democrats is that they will have to take everyone without regard for pre-existing conditions that means that they will have tremendous burdens and in order to stay in business they will have to charge these ridiculous rates. But maybe the government wants to force them out, which again will eliminate your opportunity to pick your own insurance and will leave the government as the sole insurer - which is the goal of the public option, which has actually often been stated by its proponents.

Having just complained that the House bill includes a personal mandate, you now complain that the Senate version does not? You really need to make up your mind. Personal mandate or not? Obviously, there is no pleasing you if you are going to oppose both sides at once. Insurance companies make their lowly 3% profits by having large nearly monopolistic markets (it's 3% of a huge pie) and after paying outrageous salaries and bonuses to executives. The 2008 salary of Aetna's CEO was over twenty-four million dollars! That was twice the next highest paid insurance CEO (CIGNA's who made over 12 million). There is plenty of fat to be trimmed there. How many people with pre-existing conditions can be treated for $24 million?

Anonymous wrote:
Thus you'll be left with government bureaucrats to decide on your care. Given that the Congress has utilized fuzzy math to get their plans under a Trillion dollars in expected costs (a TRILLION DOLLARS!!! - and what government program ever lives up to its expected costs), you know that they will be looking to save money by reducing allowed procedures, rationing health care, and instituting waiting and lines. Having had a father who recently passed away from pancreatic cancer, I know that the only chance many of these people have is quick care - which is not something you get under rationed systems, see England or Canada for examples. Moreover, Congress has used 10 years worth of revenues and only implemented the majority of the programs to start after 4 years, so that they have 6 years worth of expenses paid for by 10 years revenue, after that costs will explode. They get there by among other things cutting 25% of Medicare Advantage, which is one of the most popular programs among Seniors because it offers a chance to choose your own doctors and treatments (tell me again about how you'll be able to keep your insurance)? When companies like Aetna pointed this out to their recipients the administration threatened to have them investigated by the regulators. And before you think I'm some insurance company shill let me point out that in private practice I was involved in multiple litigation cases against the companies, and that I now work for the federal government (so I do not intrinsically dislike the government, but I understand how inefficient and archaic it can be).

This part of your message is almost non-sensical. First the government is not going to be running healthcare. At best, it will be administering an insurance program for a small number of people. Any proposed budgets deal purely with that. You seem to have made up your mind that either a personal mandate, or a lack of a personal mandate (you can't decide which) will drive out the private insurance companies, leaving us with government-run healthcare. That is far from a certainty, and in fact is not even part of the current reform effort. It purely hypothetical that it might happen. So, any budgetary conclusions are simply exercises of the imagination. Why don't we stick to discussion reality?

Anonymous wrote:
So thus you will be having your decisions made by a bureaucrat who will be considering his/her promotions by how effectively they can "manage" costs. These are the same people who have been unable to manage the swine flu vaccine program (and before claiming its the companies' fault, compare to Europe, which worked cooperatively with its companies to use different feeder technologies to produce virus more quickly and issue smaller doses, forgo long storage periods, etc.). Your government has not been able to ensure pregnant women are inoculated, but has made sure to send enough doses to Guantanamo to vaccinate all the prisoners there (these are the people who will decide your and your family's health care).

Again, government-run healthcare is not under consideration. If you are concerned about bureaucrats making healthcare decisions, you should really be concerned about today's system in which health insurance bureaucrats are financially incentivized to deny claims. In Washington, DC, our government-run flu vaccine distribution has been surprisingly good. If your place of residence is not up to the challenge, maybe ask them to learn from DC. As for the Europeans, you may not have been reading our flu forum. The European vaccines contain potentially dangerous additives that many Americans are happy to avoid. I don't think using the flu vaccine issue to argue against government involvement in healthcare is going to work for you. Most people are thankful for the government's involvement.

Anonymous wrote:
Finally, the analogy of the "rich" people eating around the Thanksgiving table reminds me of some sort of smarmy Hallmark card written by someone like Che Guevara. A better analogy (to improve upon yours), is the happy family sitting around the table eating the dinner that they bought and paid for, and that they made through their hard work. Their neighbors who don't work, fight, complain, and make excuses start banging on the door about how they have a right to the food. We'll also add a tiny Tim character - the honest and impoverished poor cripple who is asking "please Sir, can I have some?" Around that point someone from the government shows up, takes a dump in the middle of the table, throws it all in a pot, stirs it together, invites everyone in, gives everyone the same share, calls for more people from down the street or in the next country (the Hispanic Caucus inserted a provision in the House bill that there can be no residency requirement for the government insurance program), and tells everyone to dig into their turkey and crap sandwich. As the happy government fellow leaves he hands a bill to the productive family and tells them to work harder, there are a lot of people counting on them to continue to provide more sandwiches.

In my analogy, I never described the people eating Thanksgiving dinner as "rich". Indeed, I saw them as middle class any paying overly high healthcare costs to make up for the uninsured. Also, I prefer to avoid analogies that involve shitting on a Thanksgiving dinner. In the end, your analogy was not comprehensible.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure some may claim it's a paranoid conspiracy theory, but don't you think it's interesting that a government panel announced today that women do not need to have mammograms until they are 50 primarily on the basis that there are a lot of false positives, and the cost may not be worth it - at the same time the Obama administration is looking to cut costs in health care, while Congress proposes turning over decisions to government panels?

Here's a link to coverage from MSNBC (not Fox):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33973665/ns/health-womens_health/

The American Cancer Society counters the government argument below:

The new advice was sharply challenged by the cancer society.

"This is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over," the society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said in a statement.

The task force advice is based on its conclusion that screening 1,300 women in their 50s to save one life is worth it, but that screening 1,900 women in their 40s to save a life is not, Brawley wrote.

That stance "is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives, just not enough of them," he said. The cancer society feels the benefits outweigh the harms for women in both groups.

Welcome to the future of government health care, where bureaucrats can decide whether or not you're worth spending money on. Hey it's only breast cancer - the number one cancer in women:

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/

Still think that government run health care is a good idea?

[Anonymous]

My problem with health insurance, is that even though you are covered, it does not pay your bills.

My kid had to see a pediatric dentist, the claim was denied because it was submitted without the referral, the dental office re-did their paperwork, and this time it was denied because the dentist who signed the papers was not a pediatric specialist. In the end it took about 8 months for the insurance to pay.

Not to mention the trouble I had to go thru to get the insurance to pay the cost of the epidural during delivery.

And I know now, that they will find a way to drop coverage, should I get sick with cancer, find myself hurt in a traffic accident, or need long term care - or whatever.
Insurance does not mean you will not need to declare bankrupcy because of medical bills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That stance "is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives, just not enough of them," he said. The cancer society feels the benefits outweigh the harms for women in both groups.

I do not mind giving up unnecessary medical checkups, but I do mind if, when I need my insurance, they decide to drop me for some weird reason

[Anonymous]

If in fact 15% of breast cancer is found in women under 50, are we saying that they are disposable? Many of them have risk factors (mothers, sisters with the disease, smoking, etc.) but not all. If even 1 in 5 of these cases is without an apparent risk factor - tough luck? Next they won't swab for strep, because 95% come back negative. And those PAP smears that detect cervical cancer early - too bad, not enough sickies caught in the net to justify.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Still think that government run health care is a good idea?

Nobody is proposing that the government "run" healthcare. Given that you seen to be intelligent and somewhat knowledgeable about the debate, this misrepresentation of even a most basic fact of the ongoing healthcare reform efforts can only seem intentional. Why do you want to willfully spread misinformation?

As to your broader point, I think this actually is a good example of how some aspects of reform will work:

1) a panel of medical experts and scientists is making a recommendation. It's simply a recommendation and has no force of law. Private insurance companies can disregard the recommendation if they wish and, indeed, based on this article, they plan to disregard it.

2) early mammograms would certainly not be prohibited and anyone who wants one is free to pay for it themselves. But, in a situation where a lot of money is spent on something with little benefit, it's not a bad idea to reconsider how resources are distributed. You may see this as designating a small number of women as disposable, but how many other men and women are not written off because the funds needed to treat them are consumed by unnecessary mammograms? Ultimately, you as a consumer should have a choice of insurance plans and, if you value early mammograms, should be able to choose a plan with that coverage.

3) I would much rather have a panel of medical experts making medical recommendations than a group of overly-religious politicians legislating insurance coverage as is the case of the Stupak amendment. If you are worried about government interference in healthcare, you should be much more worried by the efforts of abortion opponents than the report of this particular panel.