House passes the Health Care Bill

[Anonymous]

How did they monetize "anxiety" and "discomfort of re-examination" in this analysis? Having personally had two "scares" under 40, one picked up in self exam, I would rather know that the lump is a harmless cyst than spend months waiting for it to "self resolve" worrying that I was ignoring a sign of cancer. Which is more anxiety producing I wonder?

It was by assigning financial values to anxiety and discomfort that the govt. task force was able to look at data identical to the American Cancer Society's and reach a different conclusion. That sounds oh so scientific to me! {sarcasm}

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Yep, I think it's a paranoid conspiracy theory. Here is why.

1. The original 1997 position was that screening needed to start at 50. In 2002, they lowered it to 40 but called the decision "subjective" and one that needed to be researched to come up with a better number. So this was on the table during Bush.
2. They also dinged breast self-exams, which cost nobody anything. This indicates that the conclusions are being drawn from the data rather than a cost-saving agenda.
3. The committee that made the recommendation is funded by the government but it is independent of it and is made up of experts from the private sector.
4. Congressional Democrats are equally surprised by the recommendation, and they are going to hold hearings which will include opposition.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard a great, simple analogy for health care, it is like having your Thanksgiving dinner completely planned for the number of guests you have invited and someone suddenly say, "OK, you're going to have six more people coming to Thanksgiving, but it's not going to cost you more and in addition you will be able to provide everyone with a better dinner than you had planned." It wouldn't work for Thanksgiving and it will not work for health care either.

This analogy could only make sense to somebody who had no idea what is included in the health reform bill.

Here is a better analogy.

One group of people eats Thanksgiving dinner, consuming as much food as it desires. Out on the street, another group of people goes hungry. Eventually, the hungry group of people goes to a restaurant that is required by law to serve them. As it happens, the restaurant is one of the most expensive in town. Since the restaurant knows it won't be paid by the hungry group, it has increased the prices charged to others, such as the first group. Also, some of the hungry arrive at the restaurant too late and starve to death. A third group is capable of buying its own food, but refuses. Instead that group also dines at no charge on the expensive restaurant food paid for by higher fees paid by the first group. The first group seems blissfully unaware that it is paying more than necessary for its food.

Healthcare reform would change this so that the group that gets to eat Thanksgiving dinner would continue eating the same food, but would pay lower prices because their fees would no longer subsidize the unpaid food provided to the hungry and those who refuse to buy food. The hungry would be fed before reaching the state of extreme hunger through mechanisms that are more efficient and cheaper than the most expensive restaurant in town. The third group would no longer exist because everyone would be required to buy food (at subsidized prices when necessary). There is one group for whom this would suck. That is the less than 1 percent of the population that eats gold-plated turkeys. That group would be charged an excise fee that would be used to help pay for the subsidies.

What is missing from the first analogy is an understanding that while resources are always limited, more efficient utilization of those resources results in a de facto increase in the resource.

Jeff - I liked your analogy, but how do you (and many others) make the leap that "Healthcare reform would change this so that the group that gets to eat Thanksgiving dinner would continue eating the same food, but would pay lower prices because their fees would no longer subsidize the unpaid food"? I agree that those that gets to eat will no longer need to subsidze the others, but there's nothing in any of the bills I've heard about that actually would act as a hook to force either the care providers or the insurance company to lower the costs for the now blissfully ignorant if they can make more off of the other 2 populations? It seems to me that it's the cooks and restaurant oweners that are going to make out like bandits....

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff - I liked your analogy, but how do you (and many others) make the leap that "Healthcare reform would change this so that the group that gets to eat Thanksgiving dinner would continue eating the same food, but would pay lower prices because their fees would no longer subsidize the unpaid food"? I agree that those that gets to eat will no longer need to subsidze the others, but there's nothing in any of the bills I've heard about that actually would act as a hook to force either the care providers or the insurance company to lower the costs for the now blissfully ignorant if they can make more off of the other 2 populations? It seems to me that it's the cooks and restaurant oweners that are going to make out like bandits....

You may well be right because of the number of prerequisites required to lower private insurance rates (what allows the group that gets to eat Thanksgiving dinner to continue eating the same food). In theory, as normal medical care and preventative medicine replace emergency room visits, the cost to providers will go down. This will allow for reduced spending by private insurance companies (but, if and only if the savings are passed on, first to providers and then to customers). In addition, proposals such as healthcare exchanges and the public option could lead to an overall reduction in premiums. In the end, if reform efforts don't lead to lower costs -- or at least cost containment, the efforts will have failed.